fatima comentada 2008 - amazon s3 · liberalism and aseityes 46 knowledge of truth, grace, ... more...

The Christian Institutionof the Family:

A Dynamic Forceto Regenerate Society

FFiirrsstt eeddiittiioonn JJaannuuaarryy 22001100:: 3,000 copiesSSeeccoonndd pprriinnttiinngg AAuugguusstt 22001111: 1,500 copiesTThhiirrdd pprriinnttiinngg JJuunnee 22001144:: 2,000 copies

Tradition, Family, Property AssociationP.O. Box 2713 – Glasgow G62 6YJ

Tel: 0141-956-7391 Fax: 0141-956-6978Email: [email protected]

TTrraannssllaattiioonn ffrroomm PPoorrttuugguueessee aanndd tteexxtt pprreeppaarraattiioonn:: Philip Moran Jr.EEddiittiinngg:: William Collins and Philip Moran Sr.

DDeessiiggnn:: Felipe Barandiarán

© 2010 by Tradition, Family, Property AssociationAll rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form, or by any

means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,without the written permission of the publisher.

IISSBBNN:: 978-84-932637-6-1

Printed in EU

TRADITION, FAMILY, PROPERTY ASSOCIATION

The Christian Institutionof the Family:

A Dynamic Forceto Regenerate Society

CONTENTS

Foreword xi

Introduction xv

PART I – The Christian Institution of the Familyand the Role of Personality

Chapter 1 – The Family in Ancient Times 5

Chapter 2 – The Family at the Origin of Feudalism 9Family Lineages: Behold What Historians Fail to Emphasise 16Lineages and the State 21Families and the Justice of God 23Lineages outside the Family Circle 25

Chapter 3 – Centralisation: A People vs. the Masses 27

Chapter 4 – The Virtue of Aseity: A FundamentalBuilding Block of Christian Society 37

Aseity of social groups 42Aseity and Revolution 44How a Person Is Influenced by the Opinions of Friends 45Aseity Differentiates People from the Mass 46Liberalism and Aseityes 46Knowledge of Truth, Grace, and Primordial Light 47

A Rough Draft to Be Completed by an Ideal Model 47Aseity, the Church, and the Planet-Satellite Relationship 48Aseity and Obedience 51Obedience, Grace, and Free Will 53Slavery: Public Opinion, Authority, and Aseity 56Aseity and the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ 56Laziness, Pride, and Public Opinion 59Relationship of Aseity and Impurity 60

Chapter 5 – The Virtue of Aseity and Family Life 63

Chapter 6 – The Family Is the Soul of Both Societyand the State 71

At the Town Level 73At the Regional Level 74At the State Level 75

Conclusion 83

PART II – The De-Christianisation,Urbanisation, and Industrialisation of the Family

Introduction 89

Chapter 1 – The Traditional Family 93Institutional Seriousness of Marriage 95Normal Development of the Childwithout the Phenomenon of “Adolescence” 96

The Opinion of the Catholic Church 98

Chapter 2 – The Urbanised Nuclear Family:A New Mentality and Behaviour 101

Loss of Purpose with the Nuclear Family 103Urbanisation Favours Juvenile Delinquency 105Incapacity to Provide for Its Own Members 106The Traditional Family Vis-à-Vis the Nuclear Family 107

Conclusion 111

Notes 113

Tradition, Family and Property Association (TFP) 117

Who is Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira? 121

FOREWORD

With this modest work, we aim to continue making thethought of the late Professor Plinio Corrêa de Oliveiramore widely known.

Prof. Corrêa de Oliveira was not only a prolific writer(see biography, p. 121) but also gave thousands of publicand private meetings during the course of his life. All ofthese are now in the process of being organised and indexedso that all may benefit from the depth and richness of histhought.

He has received many eulogies regarding his worksfrom illustrious persons, both religious and secular. Wequote just a few:

� Giuseppe Cardinal Pizzardo praised Prof.Corrêa de Oliveira’s book The Church and theCommunist State: The Impossible Coexistence, say-ing that it was “a most faithful echo of all the Docu-ments of the supreme Magisterium of theChurch…”.

� Fr. Anastasio Gutiérrez, a renowned Catholiccanonist, wrote in a letter to Prof. Corrêa de Oliveirathat Revolution and Counter-Revolution “… is a masterlywork whose teachings should be disseminated far and

wide so as to penetrate the conscience not only ofthose who consider themselves truly Catholic, but Iwould say even more, of all other men of good will”.

� The world famous historian George Bor-donove, in his foreword to the French edition ofProf. Corrêa de Oliveira’s book Nobility and Tradi-tional Analogous Elites in the Allocutions of Pius XII,comments: “This work is remarkable in all aspects,notably for the abundance and rigorous exactness ofits documentation, the author’s universal culture, hissolid argumentation, and the transparency of histhought.”

The present compilation takes as its theme an institu-tion forming an integral part of the name of our association:The Family. The material is taken from a few sources. PartI includes three meetings whose transcripts Prof. Corrêa deOliveira never had the time to review: 1) excerpts from apublic speech against divorce entitled “Tradition and Fami-ly Continuity in the Draft Bill for the Brazilian CivilCode”, which was delivered in the Auditorium of theChamber of Commerce of São Paulo in 1966 in the pres-ence of a government minister; 2) a meeting given to TFPmembers on “Lineages in the Origins of the Middle Ages”;and 3) a meeting given to TFP members on Aseity. Addi-tionally, in the hope of adding greater clarity and examplescloser to home, we have included a few excerpts from dif-ferent authorities in these matters.

Part II is taken from an article written in 1986 by Dr.Murillo Galliez, a close collaborator of Prof. Corrêa de

xii FOREWORD

FOREWORD xiii

Oliveira, entitled “The Crisis of the Family in an Urbanisedand Industrialised Society”. It provides us with a deeperunderstanding of the details of how this destruction of thefamily has taken place in the late-modern and post-moderneras.

In reading this short work, we hope you gain meaning-ful and constructive insights into how we can be a positiveforce for good today, as well as becoming more acquaintedwith the late Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, who dedicat-ed his whole life to bringing about a restoration of Chris-tian civilisation.

Tradition, Family, Property Association

“Marriage Feast in Yport” (1886), Albert Auguste Fourie.

Rouen Museum of Fine Arts Museum of Rouen, France

INTRODUCTION

The scope of the debate on the family today is usuallylimited to what type of family group brings greater happi-ness to both the spouses and the children. This can be saidof both those defending the traditional family and of thosedefending new varieties, or even in the case of divorce.

This preponderantly pedagogical or didactic point ofview restricts the idea of family to its most basic and pri-mary elements: father, mother, children, the influence ofthe parents over the children, and the cohesion of the sib-lings—even including formation, transmission of princi-ples, and agreement of minds and wills.

This slightly Cartesian way of addressing the matterdoes not consider that the family is not a conventional insti-tution nor is it merely the product of a free association ofindividuals. The family is rather a natural institution. As aresult, it encompasses many other forms of influences andtreasures.

The day-to-day life of a family is not usually concernedwith these influences and treasures, but rather with theteaching of good principles, a good moral formation, andthe individual exercising his free will to fulfil his duty even

when difficult. However, for this intellectual and moral lifeof a family to develop fully with ease, harmony, and its nat-ural vigour, it is indispensable to consider two other factors:heredity and tradition.

Tradition and heredity communicate family life with avital energy. They give family life a whole new gamut ofdevelopment in the psychological and affective order ofthings that help it to accomplish its end enormously. Con-sequently, family life is impregnated with capacities, withgerminating forces that, as we will see later on, constitutethe very soul of the State, the very soul of society. If thesetwo factors are not taken into consideration, one will notsee how the family benefits the individual, itself, or theservice it renders to the State.

When debating on the institution of the family, it is ofcapital importance that we consider this amplitude of fam-ily life, because it is in this amplitude that we can prove thatthe family is the cell that communicates life to society. It isnot merely a small brick or an ensemble of bricks uponwhich the social edifice is built. Thus, if the family is some-thing alive and not something inert, then one mustacknowledge that life in society depends on a vigorous fam-ily life. It is then a matter of utmost importance for the sur-vival of society today.

We will demonstrate in the subsequent pages of thisbook that there is a type of society that is the only true andliving society, a society that lives from the vitality of the lifeof the family; also, that this family life can only be main-tained in a traditional family—to the exclusion of all other

xvi INTRODUCTION

so-called forms such as single-parent, cohabiting, andsame-sex families.

In short, we will demonstrate the difference betweenan organic and living society as opposed to an androgynousand dead society.

INTRODUCTION xvii

PART I

“The Fam

ily of Adolfo A. Pinto” (1981) Almeida Junior. Art Gallery of the State of São Paulo, Brazil

PART I

The Christian Institution ofthe Family and

the Role of Personality

A nation is afamily of familiesat whose head is

the father of fathers.

“Matrim

onial agreement in Rom

e”. Pergamon Museum, Berlin

CHAPTER 1

The Family in Ancient Times

It was God Himself who created the first family: “AndGod created man to his own image: to the image of God hecreated him: male and female he created them. And Godblessed them, saying: ‘Increase and multiply, and fill theearth, and subdue it….’” (Gen. 1:27–28)

First God created Adam. Then He gave him Eve as hiscompanion. In this way, God created the family forming itinto a society where the wife is subject to the husband, andthe children to their parents.

In the beginning, there was no State. The family waseverything. Fustel de Coulanges, in his celebrated book TheAncient City, describes the concept of the family in theAncient world:

We can catch a glimpse therefore of a long peri-od, during which men knew no other form of socie-ty than the family….

Each family has its religion, its gods, its priest-hood….

Every family has also its property, that is to say,its lot of land, which is inseparably attached to it byits religion….

Finally every family has its chief, as a nationwould have its king. It has its laws which doubtless

6 THE CHRISTIAN INSTITUTION OF THE FAMILY

are unwritten, but which religious faith engraves inthe heart of every man. It has its court of justiceabove which there is no other that one can appeal to.Whatever man really needs for his material or morallife the family possesses within itself. It needs noth-ing from without; it is an organized state, a societythat suffices for itself.

But this family of ancient ages is not reduced tothe proportions of the modern family. In larger soci-eties the family separates and decreases. But in theabsence of every other social organization, it extends,develops, and ramifies without becoming divided.Several younger branches remain grouped around anolder one, near the one sacred fire and the commontomb….

From all this we see that the family, in the earli-est times, with its oldest branch and its youngerbranches, its servants and its clients, might comprisea very numerous body of men. A family that by itsreligion maintained its unity, by its private law ren-dered itself indivisible, and through the laws ofclientship retained its servants, came to form, in thecourse of time, a very extensive organization, havingits hereditary chief.1

From these thousands of little groups of families largergroups were formed, which in turn formed tribes and thencities. Both Athens and Rome originated in this manner.Eventually a nation emerges.

The theologian and essayist Mgr Henri Delassus refers,in his work The Spirit of the Family, to the thinking of Cice-ro in Republic:

The family is the beginning of the city and, in acertain way, the seed of the republic. The familydivides and branches out, but remains united. Whenthe siblings, their children and grandchildren nolonger fit in the paternal home, they leave to formnew branches, just like new colonies. They formalliances from whence come new affinities, and thefamily propagates. Little by little, the branches mul-tiply, everything grows, everything develops and therepublic is born.2

The formation of a nation is, then, an organic processsolidly based on the family unit. From this comes thenotion that a nation is a family of families at whose head isthe father of fathers.

THE FAMILY IN ANCIENT TIMES 7

The family is an institution of the natural order, foundedon a sacrament, and given the task of perpetuating the

human species and educating the offspring.

“Conversion of Clovis”. O

rsay Museum, Paris

CHAPTER 2

The Family at theOrigin of Feudalism

When the Roman Empire was at its apogee of earthlysplendour and glory, when it was renowned for its adminis-trative and judicial institutions, its cities were linked byroads that are an engineering feat, some of which still sur-vive. These roads permitted troops to defend the Empire’sborders and to keep the provinces under submission. Theyalso facilitated travel by foot, horse, or oxen cart—a rathermore common occurrence than we might suppose. Theoxcart was the luxury mode of transport of the time: a con-voy of up to ten carts provided all sorts of amenities fortheir travellers, even snow with which to make ice cream.

This situation drastically changed when the first bar-barian hordes overran the Empire. The Franks were theroughest barbarians one could imagine, but as time went bythey became a bit more civilised—though precariously. Bythe 7th and 8th centuries the hordes were just short of full-fledged barbarianism—the very modest fruit obtained bythe Catholic Church after a tremendous struggle. She hadpried some from Arianism, converted others, and graduallysmoothed the rough edges off their customs.

Then, in a tragic fashion, the hurricanes of adversityblew in earnest upon this immense but fledgling work. Thefloodgates of the non-Christian world opened up andwaves of pagans invaded Europe. From Russia and Prus-sia—regions still unknown at the time—descended barbar-ians even more primitive than those of the first invasion,laying waste, sacking, and reproducing the horrors perpe-trated earlier in the Roman Empire of the West.

The Vikings, just as rough, came by sea from the north.At a certain moment, taken up with a sailing frenzy, fami-lies, tribes, nations, the whole kingdom set sail. They wouldtravel in their longboats along the coast sacking, devouring,and levelling everything. Some of their chiefs called them-selves “Sea Kings”. In this way they reached as far as Con-stantinople and invaded Byzantium. They always razedeverything in their path and at times made profound incur-sions inland, leaving behind a few men who would contin-ue the work of destruction.

From the south came the Saracens. Crossing theMediterranean into Spain, some invaded all the way intothe heart of France, while others invaded Italy.

All the forces of hell were unleashed upon WesternChristendom. It was an immense disaster. A civilisationwhose edifice was just rising from the ground and that hadbeen born from a miracle—the miraculous conversions ofthe Arians and Franks—was subjected to a hurricane thattore apart everything.

Indeed horrified with what was happening, the morecivilised men began to climb hills and mountains and to


establish themselves on less accessible spots so that whenthe invaders came their destructive force would be imped-ed by natural barriers. At the same time, they also began tosow and harvest and build houses behind swamps andplaces called marécage, or marshes, behind which are foundfertile lands. The barbarians, who roamed the main roadsbetween large cities, would not be able to find them hidingbehind marshes, on mountains, or in more inhospitableregions.

These were disorderly flights of a terrified people. Itwas not whole cities that took flight, but groups of families;everyone went where one could.

In face of the harshness of both nature and adversaries,and no longer having a State to govern them—as the weakand powerless kings could no longer make their ordersreach those absolutely inaccessible places—they werereduced to the initial basic cell of society: the family.

This primary natural organisation enabled them to sur-vive. From this basic group emerged the paterfamilias,which was at the same time a political, economical, and reli-gious unit constituting a small country in each locality. Ineach of these social groups, a man usually endowed withgreater talents would assume leadership. He was the natu-ral support of that fugitive community. A man with a verybroad personality, endowed with a talent to lead, with anunderstanding of the surrounding dangers and a capacity toorganise. Everyone felt supported by him. He organised lifeand his offspring inherited his qualities and functions.

Fugitive families then started to gather around this

THE FAMILY AT THE ORIGIN OF FEUDALISM 11

Fresco depicting thefamily geneology inBurg Castle, Solingen,

Germany

princeps family and to constitute small social units, naturallymonarchic and family-based: monarchic because of thepresence of a unique and unquestionable authority; family-based because it was made up essentially of the chief and hisfamily, along with those who joined the group as newcom-ers but were not, properly speaking, part of the essence ofthat unit comprised of the chief and his family.

The head of the family reigned as absolute master. Hewas called—this is the word to be found in documents ofthe period—”Sire”; his wife, the mother of the family, wascalled “dame,” domina.

The family lived in its fortified residence. Men toiled,loved, and died in the same spot where they had been born.The head of the family was, by turns, a fighting man andagricultural worker. The lands he cultivated lay around hisdwelling.

Under the direction of the chief, the family becameskillful in building its shelter and in making hooks andploughs. In the inner courtyard glowed the fire of the forgein which weapons were fashioned on the resounding anvil.The women dyed and wove fabrics.

The family became a fatherland, and the Latin writingsof the period designated it by the word patria, and it wasloved with all the more affection because it was a concreteand living fact under the eyes of everyone. It made its com-pelling power directly felt, as well as its gentle influence. Itbecame a solid and well-loved defence, an indispensableprotection. Without the family, man could not maintain hisexistence.


In this way were formed those sentiments of solidarityuniting the members of the family to each other, whichcontinued to develop and become more and more definiteunder the influence of a powerful tradition. A man’s pros-perity contributed to that of his relatives, the honour of theone became that of the other, and, as a consequence, theshame of the one was reflected upon all the members of hiskin.

This formed a society to itself on a small scale, neigh-bour to, but isolated from, similar small societies constitut-ed on the same model.

Where is the State? It almost does not exist. The headof the family exercises all the functions proper to the State.

A civilisation without the supernatural resources of theChurch would have succumbed. We would have seen itcrumble and the whole work come to an end. Yet, it isbeyond doubt that this very disaster was largely the cause ofthe birth of the most extraordinary political and socialregime in history: feudalism.

To say that catastrophe provoked feudalism would betantamount to affirming that the flourishing of the new-born Church was due to the persecutions: Being persecut-ed, Catholics reacted; on reacting, they had zeal; and withthat, they dominated the old pagan world. This is an overlymechanical and simplified explanation. One cannot affirmthat, first, we had a society, then a hurricane blew in anddestroyed everything, then everyone gathered at remoteplaces, and from that feudalism was born!

Who could affirm that the only possible attitude of


those peoples was to react and establish a living cell in eachplace? Who could maintain that they would necessarily giverise, in each refuge, to a man of value who would found alineage capable of continuing his work? Who could claimthey would have sufficient vigour and ingenuity to turnextremely poor lands into fertile ones and give an impulseto social renewal? Who could say they would have enoughdiplomatic tact, once circumstances had changed, to main-tain family autonomy rather than allow themselves to bedevoured by the State?

* * *

Before concluding this section, we should mentionthat “Saxon England also had a feudal system but it was lesscomprehensive than in France. In practice many small Eng-lish landowners were ‘lordless’ and independent freemen.However, William the Conqueror introduced the more sys-tematic and uniform type of feudalism of the Continent.” 3

Furthermore, Anglo-Saxon “family institutions wereidentical with those of the French throughout the MiddleAges, and who, unlike the French, had continued to pre-serve them. Here, doubtless, lies the explanation of theprodigious Anglo-Saxon expansion throughout the world.For it is in fact, in this way, that an empire is founded, as aresult of waves of explorers, pioneers, merchants, adventur-ers and dare-devils who leave their homes to seek a fortune,but without forgetting their native land and the tradition oftheir forefathers.” 4


Family Lineages: Behold WhatHistorians Fail to Emphasise

We were facing one of the primordial events in the his-tory of mankind. When these semi-civilised tribes werepushed toward the hills and behind the swamps, a series offamily lineages was born. This is a fact that historians fail toemphasise sufficiently.

A lineage is something very different from a family.What is a family? It is the ensemble of father, mother, andchildren. It suffices to have legitimately married parents fora family to exist. A lineage, however, is quite different. TheFrench language speaks of source, that is, origin. It refers tothe source of a family just as to the source of a river. TheEnglish also used the word source in this manner, but alsoof stock, as in “coming from good stock”.

So what is the source of a family? What is a lineage-man? The founder of a lineage is a man with a vigorousenough personality to raise a family that maintains his mainmoral and physical hereditary traits. He gives it a sufficient-ly strong formation so that the initial impulse that heimparts to a certain order of things continues after him. Heis a man who founds a school of feeling, of thinking, of act-ing, of overcoming difficulties—who founds a small systemof life. I affirm that it is necessary to have much more per-sonality to found a family lineage than to govern a country.Founding a lineage requires a most vigorous personality,one which must be vigorously wholesome in order to fol-low a wholesome direction.


Founding alineage requiresa most vigorouspersonality

What was admirable at that moment of European his-tory was that those families, who had been driven out, ban-ished, and cast into utter disgrace, reacted and formed line-ages all over the place who eventually became the noble lin-eages of Europe. These lineages, which were to mark onethousand years of history, arose from the most atrociousmisfortune. Because of their natural vigour and, above all,the correspondence of their family members to God’sgrace, these abandoned and isolated families gave birth tothe noble family. The ensemble of these noble families thengave birth to Europe. This is the true story of feudalism.(There is a series of other facts that prepared the coming offeudalism, but we will not study them here, as this woulddeviate too much from our main topic.)

Since lineages had such an importance in the formationof feudalism, let us study them more accurately and atlength. If we have a correct concept of the family, we willknow what was born when we say lineages were born. Todo this, however, we need to analyse in depth the realitythat is called man.

Man is endowed with soul and body. Consequently,spiritual and invisible realities can be manifested to the eyesof men through visible material realities. There is a myste-rious nexus between soul and body whereby the body, insome way, is a symbol of the soul. The human body is areflection of the soul by its colour, physiognomic traits,timbre of voice, dynamism, way of moving, etc. It allows itsqualities to show through. It this harmonious whole of souland body that constitutes the human person.


Thus characterised, man is susceptible of a greater orlesser physical or moral development. In the physical realmthis phenomenon is known to everyone. If a newborn childis placed in an ambience in which his physical energies arestimulated, the child can grow quite large, at least as big ashis nature permits; but placed in unfavourable circum-stances, the child will most likely be underdeveloped.

The same can be said of the soul. It has a series of poten-tialities that will develop if the conditions in which we place itare propitious. Otherwise, only with great difficulty wouldthose qualities affirm themselves and triumph. We can there-fore say that the human soul will develop more or less com-pletely depending on the conditions in which it finds itself.Just as the body only realises itself fully in certain circum-stances, so also does the soul. The full realisation of thehuman person, who is soul and body, is constituted by the fullrealisation of the soul and the body together. By consideringthis, we are better able to understand what lineage is.

The family is an institution of the natural order, found-ed on a sacrament, and given the task of perpetuating thehuman species and educating the offspring. It is an institu-tion, therefore, whose obligation is to develop and educatethe human personality to the greatest possible extent. Thefamily will perfectly accomplish its mission if it makes allthe qualities of both body and soul of those born into itexpand and affirm themselves completely.

To accomplish this, the family is endowed withextraordinary qualities, heredity and tradition, at which wewill take a closer look in Chapter 5.


Lineage register of thecity of Frankfurt

This notion of lineage needs to be completed. Thereare lineages not only in the noble class, but in all socialclasses. If lineage is the natural product of a family’s devel-opment, and if the family is called by the designs of Provi-dence to develop, we must have many lineages at every levelof the social hierarchy: lineages of bakers, princes, rubbishcollectors, jewellers, and singers.

The ensemble of these lineages is what constitutes anation, a nation not only in the present, but with a historiccontinuity in the past, present, and future. Today’s Europeis the same Europe as yesterday’s because it descends fromthe same ancient lineages, preserving an identity of tradi-tion. However, to the degree that these lineages fade awayand are replaced by new ones without true tradition, acountry is no longer the same. This is a process of manycenturies. Today’s Egypt, for example, is no longer theEgypt of old, as its lineages are not the same.

What was born with feudalism, both in cities and thecountryside, was an enormous ensemble of men whoformed lineages. This ensemble of lineages and lineage-based organisations is precisely what constituted the MiddleAges. What it had most intrinsically and deeply rooted wasthis structure of lineages vivified by the family spirit. Thisis what historians generally fail to take into account.

Lineages and the State

If a family with well-defined characteristics is spreadout with many distant but very united relatives, everyone


having a vivid sensation of being a member of the samefamily, each member will be supported by a social groupindependent from the State. The family is a power; as agroup, it moves independently from the State and consti-tutes a cell with which that the State must reckon. Its mem-bers do not depend on social welfare agencies. If theybecome impoverished, the family will help them. Relativesform the circle of their relationships that ensures theirsocial position no matter how they dress, etc. There is notmuch the State can do about institutions of this nature. Ifsomeone was born in a certain lineage, the State cannot domuch about it. A defined lineage is a factor in the inde-pendence of the individual himself since it creates a barrieragainst State arbitrarity.

In a society full of lineages, there are very importantsocial groups that the State must take into account at everymoment. Today’s society is one without lineages, with onlyvague or distant ties of kinship and fading families. In thefeudal and medieval organisation, lineages were the rawmaterial, but these lineages have gone through one, two,and even ten centuries of historic continuity.

Note that historians unanimously agree that there areworks that need to be carried out by several generations:founding certain countries, developing certain policies, cre-ating certain sources of prosperity. The family is the institu-tion of natural law that assures the realisation of historicworks through generations. Lineage causes a dynasty tocarry out a work through generations: a family of bell cast-ers to perfect a certain type of bell, one of winemakers to


produce an excellent wine, one of professors to enhance anincomparable didactic system. These are works of genera-tions and are the most profound works in history. By natu-ral law, they must be carried out by lineages.

Families and the Justice of God

Being eternal, men will be judged in life eternal; butsince nations are not eternal, they will receive their rewardor punishment on this earth. The same happens with fam-ilies. As such they are neither saved nor lost; they arerewarded for their qualities or punished for their defects onthis earth. The Scriptures many times speak about this mys-tery: families, called to a certain mission, who refuse andleave the stage of history; others, corresponding to grace,who begin to flourish and God makes intelligent and illus-trious men to be born of them. This does not mean thatevery family that is impoverished is so out of punishment;but, as a general rule, one can say that the ascension or deca-dence of families is related to the use they make of divinegrace.

Thus a man ensures the continuity and ascension of hislineage by practicing acts of virtue that add up, as on a scale,here on earth. The good done by a grandfather will fallupon his grandson, and often someone’s punishment fallsupon his descendant. Such is the continuity of the family,whose scale in divine justice is only one.

One of the reasons for tedium in today’s family life isthat families are frustrated, as are their members and con-


Florens-Louis Heidsieck was the son of a Lutheran minister fromWestphalia. He moved to Reims to work as a cloth merchant, anddiscovered winemaking there. He started making his own wine in

1780, and while he was neither a viticulturist nor a native of Reims, hedisplayed talent and worked hard at his new-found profession. Hefounded his own House on 16 July 1785. He had already become anexpert in his art, and even dedicated one of his wines to Queen Marie-Antoinette. Moreover, he was granted the honour of presenting it to

Her Majesty in person.

Private Collection in the home of

Piper-Heidsieck, Reims, France


versation. One of the frustrations is that not all of the chil-dren were born—how much curse comes just from this! Ina family of the Ancien Régime (French society before theFrench Revolution)—whether noble or plebeian, as theyare all miniatures of one another, from the king’s to thepoorest man’s—everyone feels and thinks the same way,everybody loves one another, the offspring is fecund, thefamily exists. If they go on an outing together, it is becauseit is natural for them to be together. With the present deca-dence of the family, all of that rarely takes place. If they werelineages, they would all feel that co-naturality. A commentmade by one would resound in a pleasant way in all othersas in a symphony. What we have today is a poor cacophony,with only a few, and, worse yet, dissonant instruments thatyou can barely hear any more.

Lineages outside the Family Circle

Finally, there can be lineages outside of the family cir-cle. In general, great institutions are lineages not very rigor-ously based upon families. They constitute families ofsouls: religious orders, universities, or even the Germanarmy. They are spiritual lineages that can be somewhatrelated with natural lineages, as was the case with the Ger-man army, wherein it was traditional for certain families tooccupy certain posts. They can also be unrelated, as in thecases of religious orders. These types of lineages also con-stituted the body social of the Middle Ages.

From the exuberant life of a truepeople, an abundant rich life isdiffused in the state and all its

organs

CHAPTER 3

Centralisation:A People vs. the Masses

With the barbarian invasions, the population density ofthe cities diminished greatly and small towns became com-pletely isolated. This isolated economy obliged them tobecome self-sufficient and take advantage of everythingwithin their locality. It was direct subsistence without anyexternal commerce.

In these conditions, each small community developeda unique character that developed its own architecture, itsown dress, its own customs, and even its own language anddialects. By the 11th–12th centuries, Europe resembled amosaic of tiny cultures that were small worlds unto them-selves, each one bursting with life.

Many of these regional variations yet survive. Indeedthe principal attraction Europe exercises over tourists is thevariety of regional dress, architecture, dance, music, andcuisine that are faint remnants of the varieties that prolifer-ated in medieval times. Each region and town produced itsown culture and civilisation that was distinct from the next,even if it were just a few leagues away.

It is not hard to see that this proliferation of exuberantcultures was a grassroots movement: these were small com-

munities where individuals and families naturally commu-nicated their vigour and influence in an ambience wherepublic authority was limited. It was a time when the indi-vidual, the family, and custom directed life more than theconstituted public authority.

Beginning in the 12th century this situation underwenta transformation, as feudal warfare diminished and Europeexperienced relative peace. The knights-errant had clearedthe thoroughfares of bandits and commerce had resumed.As the barriers between isolated communities disappeared,bigger towns were formed. Kings naturally emerged andconstituted courts, and capitols began to appear in the vari-ous kingdoms. Everything began to tend toward centralisa-tion.

This centralising trend continued to gather force untilthe 17th century and the beginning of the 18th century,with monarchs like Louis XIV of France and others a bitbefore and after him, such as Philip II of Spain and Peter theGreat and Catherine of Russia. This concentration ofauthority upset the natural interplay of influences and wasmost noticeable in the court of Louis XIV.

It was the paradigm court. Its king, known as the SunKing, considered himself to be as kings should have been.He was surrounded by nobility who considered themselvesto be the perfect model of courtly aristocracy. In fact, theywere indeed imitated by aristocracies all over Europe. Thiscourt had statesmen Europe considered to be the mostaccomplished. It had great ladies who were the prototype ofelegance, charm, and feminine beauty in that century. Even


the Church participated in this movement, with ecclesias-tics such as Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet, a bishop and theolo-gian renowned for his sermons and other addresses. He wasfollowed shortly thereafter by another bishop, Jean-BaptisteMassillon, both considered as model Church oratorsthroughout Europe.

Thus, a new centre was formed upon which the wholeof France—indeed all of Europe, to varying degrees—mod-elled itself. This presented a state of affairs diametricallyopposite to what had existed heretofore.

Everywhere local influences disintegrated. Everywhereregional character gradually disappeared. They gave way toa new centre equipped with technocrats and specialists whowere better at everything, from the art of conversation tothe art of finances, from leading armies to directing theChurch. Everyone imitated this new centre and the situa-tion was entirely transformed.

Life as well as social movement no longer came fromthe grassroots upwards, but rather from the top down-wards. It no longer came from the social body influencingthose at the head of society, but it is now those at the headof society moulding the social body, which has now becomea lifeless mass and allowing itself to be totally dominated.

Contrary to appearances, this centralisation did notcease with the French Revolution. Indeed the Committeeof Public Safety exercised greater centralised authority andpower than Louis XIV. Napoleon had even greater powerthan the Committee of Public Safety. Many French histori-ans and legal experts agree that today’s French heads of state

CENTRALISATION: A PEOPLE VS. THE MASSES 29


have much greater means to direct the social body thanLouis XIV had at the height of his glory.

In this way, the interplay of influences had changed.With the transition from an aristocratic monarchy todemocracy, the people were now king. In this directing cen-tre, things had changed a bit. We now had what some soci-ologists have identified as a “doxocracy”: for each problemarising within society, a commission or quango—predomi-nantly composed of specialists and technocrats—is estab-lished to find a solution, which is then spread, via the massmedia, to influence the general public. Thus influenced,

“Louis XIV and Molière”.Jean-Leon Gerome(Private collection)


the electorate is free to choose; but the main impulse stillemanates from the capitol.

More precisely, we have technocrats who leave theirrespective centres of life and go to the capitol to imbibe anartificial life. From there they direct the propaganda andobtain, through elections, the necessary mandate to imple-ment whatever they want. In this way, the capitol, with itspeculiar values, continues to direct society from outwardsin. All regional and local values gradually lose their influ-ence and capacity to develop.

The result of this process is the impoverishment ofmodern man. Each of us has the sensation that he is an iso-lated grain of sand within a multitude. We are graduallybecoming so accustomed to reacting only to external stim-uli (all means of social communication, primarily televi-sion, printed media, cinema, the internet, twitter, etc.) thatwe are renouncing everything that originates from within

us and that projects itself on the outside world. Weare passive and inert in face of the enormity ofoutside stimuli leading all of us where weknow not; but if we did know, we wouldtremble.

A typical example of how thisinfluence works was illustrated bya full page picture in the magazine

Paris Match (1966). There was aphoto of a young lady dressed in avery masculine way and who wasbrandishing a club. Since her

mother had been a movie star, the magazine had also pub-lished a photo of the mother when a young lady herself.The photo showed her to be very feminine at a time whenwomen were proud to be so and when a man’s appreciationfor a woman grew in direct proportion to her femininity.There is also a very masculine man at her side embracingher, presumably the father of the young lady. One couldthink that if the mother, who had been proud to be so fem-inine, could have foreseen that her daughter would turn outto be this strapping lad of the feminine sex, she would havefainted.

One must ask how she was led to accept this in such away as not to even perceive she had changed. It was preciselybecause of external stimuli: “This is the fashion now, so this ishow it should be.” She did not reason the thing out; so, whatwas the consequence? She was completely transformed as aresult of an unperceived cultural or psychological tranship-ment. Exercising an influence coming from without, theexternal stimuli gradually impose upon us, and within us,prototypes, fashions, and ways of being that can be in contra-diction with our most profound tendencies.

Pope Pius XII explained this situation very well in hisfamous Christmas Radio-Message of 1944:

The state does not contain in itself and does notmechanically bring together in a given territory ashapeless mass of individuals. It is, and should inpractice be, the organic and organising unity of a realpeople. The people, and a shapeless multitude (or, asit is called, “the masses”) are two distinct concepts.


The people lives and moves by its own lifeenergy; the masses are inert of themselves and canonly be moved from outside. The people lives by thefullness of life in the men that compose it, each of


The people lives andmoves by its own life

energy...

“Returning from

the Calvario fair” (1903), Ignacio Diaz Olano. Fine Arts Museum of Alvara, Spain


... the masses are inert ofthemselves and can only be

moved from outside.


whom—at his proper place and in his own way—is aperson conscious of his own responsibility and of hisown views. The masses, on the contrary, wait for theimpulse from outside, an easy plaything in the handsof anyone who exploits their instincts and impres-sions; ready to follow in turn, today this flag, tomor-row another.

From the exuberant life of a true people, anabundant rich life is diffused in the state and all itsorgans, instilling into them, with a vigour that isalways renewing itself, the consciousness of theirown responsibility, the true instinct for the commongood.

The elementary power of the masses, deftlymanaged and employed, the state also can utilise: inthe ambitious hands of one or of several who havebeen artificially brought together for selfish aims, thestate itself, with the support of the masses, reducedto the minimum status of a mere machine, canimpose its whims on the better part of the real peo-ple: the common interest remains seriously, and fora long time, injured by this process, and the injury isvery often hard to heal.

Aseity is the virtue by which a person develops his own originality.In doing so, he develops qualities that make him unique and

unmistakable in the work of Creation.

“Halles food market”, Victor G

abriel Gilbert. Malraux Museum, Le Havre

CHAPTER 4

The Virtue of Aseity:A Fundamental Building Block

of Christian Society

At this point someone could ask: “So what do youthink is the solution? You said that this exuberance in thelife of a people took place when communication was cut off,and that when communication recommenced this vitalitydisappeared. Does that mean we should bomb the roads sothat everyone is cut off once again? So, the remote hamletand the inaccessible places are the way back to a unified cul-ture and civilisation? Are you saying that the big towns andcities are beasts that devour true civilisation? This is not afeasible solution!”

The answer is quite simple. It is not true that theremote and inaccessible places of themselves bring about alifestyle full of vitality. Our countries are full of theseremote places that suffer the same ills of a culture and civil-isation that have very little unique. This is because they alsohave, among other things, radio and television that affectthem as much as anyone else in the cities. Breakdown ofcommunications was a circumstantial and temporary event

“The exit of theprocession”,Edwin Thomas

Dolby,19th Century.Fine ArtsMuseum ofChartres.

that favoured events, but there is another factor that ismuch more profound and important that brought thisabout.

This factor is a religious life. The Middle Ages is a goodexample. The Middle Ages in spite of its faults—indeedevery human epoch has had and will have its shortcom-ings—was an era of intense religious life. Pope Leo XIIIattests to this in his encyclical Immortale Dei:

There was once a time when States weregoverned by the philosophy of the Gospel. Then itwas that the power and divine virtue of Christianwisdom had diffused itself throughout the laws,institutions, and morals of the people, permeatingall ranks and relations of civil society. Then, too, thereligion instituted by Jesus Christ, established firm-ly in befitting dignity, flourished everywhere, by thefavour of princes and the legitimate protection ofmagistrates; and Church and State were happilyunited in concord and friendly interchange of goodoffices. The State, constituted in this wise, borefruits important beyond all expectation, whoseremembrance is still, and always will be, in renown,witnessed to as they are by countless proofs whichcan never be blotted out or ever obscured by anycraft of any enemies.5

Hence a truly religious life, clearly understood andproperly lived, will stimulate each individual to develop hispersonality, will encourage him to express his originalityand uniqueness with vigour and clarity. In other words, a

THE VIRTUE OF ASEITY 39

truly religious formation shapes people with very strongpersonalities.

This is why one can say that there is nothing more sim-ilar than two saints; but at the same time there is nothingmore different. It is true that they are similar in their sanc-tity, but it is also true that there is a marked difference intheir ways of being. Their personalities can have funda-mental and transcendental differences.

St. Thomas Aquinas explains the reason for this verywell in the Summa Theologica and the Summa Contra Gentiles.He says that God wanted to create the present order ofthings with an immense variety of different creatures. Eachcreature would be unique, with its own characteristics, adominant personality trait. Consequently each creatureshould shine with a wholesome originality. We are not talk-ing about extravagance, and especially not about copycatbehaviour or mass-produced mentalities.

It is by placing all these many creatures side-by-side,each one reflecting God in the particular way he is called todo, that we can have a global idea of God in this life. It islike the sun being reflected in thousands of little mirrors. Ifwe place all the mirrors together, as if in a mosaic, we canhave a certain notion of the sun in its totality.

Therefore, we can conclude that it is fundamental forthe plans of Providence, as well as for the good order ofhuman creatures themselves, that each one’s uniquenessclearly shines forth. Each one’s wholesome and legitimatecharacteristics should blossom, develop, impose, and tri-umph in the fight that is our daily lives.


This is what brought about the prodigious originalityof Medieval Europe. It was and is exactly this great goodthat we should cultivate as being the very foundation ofhuman society.

What name should we give to this great good, this greatvirtue? I pondered this question for a long time. I think theonly adequate word to express this is aseity, as long as it isunderstood in a relative sense. Aseity is a word to be foundin ecclesiastical terminology, particularly in the Franciscanmoral and theological schools of the Middle Ages, andespecially in St. Bonaventure.

In order to understand the importance of aseity in rela-tion to our study on the family, we will need to go into thissubject more deeply.

Aseity (Latin: a, from; se, itself) is a property by whicha being exists of and from itself. One can easily see that thiscan only belong to God, Who does not depend for His exis-tence, realisation, or end on anything other than Himself.

However, we could consider that alongside this infiniteand absolute aseity, there is a miniscule aseity—one that isrelative, contingent, diminutive—which is the aseity of thehuman being who has received everything from God. Thishuman being has an internal zone of his soul or being thathas the characteristic mark of his individuality. This isreceived from God alone and not from any other creature.It is something that the person has and makes manifest andthat he affirms and does not receive from anyone. The per-son himself is the initial mover of something born fromwithin and not from without.


Thus, to develop one’s God-given spiritual and intel-lectual potential, like the seed that becomes the blossom,aseity also develops and bears fruit. Each one reaches intohimself and fully develops his talents.

Aseity is, then, the virtue by which a person developshis own originality—in the good sense of the word. Indoing so, he develops qualities that make him unique andunmistakable in the work of Creation.

If we imagine a whole world of aseities, of personali-ties, of individualities that in an upright manner express andmanifest themselves, we will have individuals bubblingwith life. These individual lives will be a very fertile spraythat will pervade every part of society, all the dominions ofpublic and private life. They will constitute a truly livelypeople—not like today, when people are an inert and lifelessmass, as in the words of Pope Pius XII seen earlier.

Aseity of social groups

Not only individuals, but also social groups can prac-tice aseity. Social groups include neighbourhoods, parish-es, institutions, academies, and even families. As a moralentity, each social group has its own aseity. Each groupcan engender and develop its own richness, which springsfrom the ample and organic richness of soul of its mem-bers.

Aseity should be practiced under the guidance of theinspiration and light of truly Christian principles. It mustbe based on Faith and morality. Furthermore, it must be


Commandos ofthe Royal Marinesand Officers ofthe U.S. MarineCorps chat in theRoyal Marines

Club

rooted in reason and true philosophy. With this solid foun-dation each social group, each region, nation, cycle of civil-isation, or culture finds its proper direction. This is howaseity works.

Aseity and Revolution

If we analyse history from an impartial and, moreover,Christian perspective, we note that with the Enlightenmentand later the political reforms of the French Revolution,social groups lost their vigour and cohesion within society.The old bond between State and individual dissolved. Thefamily lost its strength. The individual lost his identitywithin the family. The family lost its identity within theregion, regions lost their meaning inside the country, andeven countries were swallowed up by what would becomeinternational bodies.

Man finds small and closed groups suited and propor-tional to human nature. He properly develops his personal-ity within these groups. When they are eliminated, there isnothing between the individual and the street, the individ-ual and the masses, the individual and the multitude, or theindividual and chaos. Facing the masses, the person feelscompletely isolated.

Take the cells that make up a hand. They are not isolat-ed. Together they share an organic relationship. However,grains of sand on the beach are isolated. A beach may havebillions of grains of sand, but each one is isolated and doesnot form any kind of tissue like skin cells do.


This is the status of man after the French Revolutiondestroyed the organic fabric of society. Today millions ofindividuals live side by side without forming a society.

How a Person Is Influenced bythe Opinions of Friends

Man tends to accept regularly the opinions in vogueamong his friends. This is a deterioration of the instinct ofsociability that leads man to go with the tide without realis-ing how wrong it may be. This is caused by the desire toagree with others and avoid the discomfort of disagreeing.It is compounded by a laziness to think for oneself and toassert oneself.

The instinct of sociability thus pushes people to wantto accept a dominant opinion in society. It forces people todepend on certain social tendencies and currents thatoppose the practice of aseity.

A modern example of this lack of aseity is the man whogoes to a football game with a radio in hand. He listens tothe radio while he watches the game because he needs theradio broadcast to boost his excitement. Although watchingthe same game, he needs someone to tell him what is hap-pening to feel the pleasure of being part of the crowd andits excitement.

Nothing could be further from aseity. Instead of devel-oping interior qualities, this football spectator destroysthem, allowing external things to make him contrary towhat he ought to be. This desire to be one with the masses


is caused by the natural instinct of sociability and the down-ward pull of fallen human nature after Original Sin. Thistendency is so strong that unless constantly opposed, mengo astray.

Aseity Differentiates People from the Masses

The virtue of aseity is what distinguishes a people fromthe anonymous masses. The masses are people without ase-ity. In final analysis, a nation with aseity is a truly Christianone, otherwise it will shift according to the flux of publicopinion.

The collective opinion often favours a kind of chaoticstate. Everyone agrees with the chaotic state because of thepull of the collective opinion and a lack of aseity.

Liberalism and Aseity

Let us analyse liberalism. Although it seems to promoteindividual opinion, liberalism actually destroys true aseity.There was a time when to be liberal meant to state one’sopinions and display personality. The liberals argued aboutpolitics and confronted opposing opinions.

Someone might even claim liberalism was an exagger-ated aseity, since it stressed extreme individualism.

Only naïve persons would define aseity like that. Actu-ally, it was fashionable to state one’s opinions at the heightof liberalism. However, these opinions were really sub-


servient to the public opinion of the times that determinedthat course of action. To go outside these established liber-al opinions would have taken strong aseity. For example, itwould take courage to say, “I defend the principle ofinequality of social classes.”

True aseity, therefore, did not really exist. What didexist was true slavery to public opinion imposed under thefalse appearance of aseity.

Knowledge of Truth, Grace,and Primordial Light

What is true aseity? Just because one strongly exerts hisindividuality does not mean aseity is subjective. By the help ofgrace and use of reason, man knows truth. He especially per-ceives truth when the salvation of his soul is at stake. Fromthis he discerns a notion of his primordial light. If faithful tograce, he is guided along the path of his primordial light.

A Rough Draftto Be Completed by an Ideal Model

According to the doctrine of the primordial light, atbirth, man could be compared to a rough draft. He mustfinish it based on an ideal model. That ideal model is hisprimordial light. A man truly sanctifies himself when hestrives to know, accept, and form himself according to hisprimordial light.


So the practice of aseity cannot be based on arbitrarywhims. It cannot be based on feelings. Rather, it must seekto obtain knowledge of one’s primordial light. The drivingforce—a mixture of grace and effort—is to reach his pri-mordial light. That is aseity.

Since the primordial light is extremely profound, itmust come from deep within. When he strives to accom-plish this interior ideal, with grace and effort, he is sancti-fied. Consequently man practices true aseity when heknows his primordial light and sanctifies himself.

Thus, aseity creates an atmosphere which favours one’sprimordial light and opposes one’s capital vice, by develop-ing all of one’s qualities.

Aseity, the Church, andthe Planet-Satellite Relationship

Practicing aseity makes man immediately realize hecannot progress alone, and thus needs help and support. Hesenses his intellectual and moral weakness. He will neverobtain a complete knowledge of his sublime ideal by him-self.

Indeed, he needs the support of another. For a man toput in motion that interior drive toward sanctification, hemust place himself under the direction of another whomGod has put in his path. By the light of Faith, he under-stands this not as a defeat or a humiliation at being over-whelmed by a stronger influence; on the contrary, as St.


Paul says, this submission comes from a rationale obse-quium (reasonable proposition).

By Faith, he knows that the Church is given to guidehim. She protects his weakness. He finds the truth underthe direction of the Church who, as a teacher of souls, helpshim to choose the right path and through whose sacramentshe finds life in order to attain his goals. Thus, he first turnsfor support not to his own aseity or personality, but to theChurch whom he heeds in an act of submission. In thisway, he practices true aseity. Therefore, submission is notthe opposite of aseity, but a movement towards practicing it.

Imagine a man climbing in the Alps. He climbs andclimbs and at a certain point he realises he cannot continue


For the liberal mentality,such submission is ahumiliation; but for theChristian it is quite the

contrary...

without a guide, so he requests one. By not accepting theguide does he show weakness or strength? Only a fool ormegalomaniac would say the man lacked character by sub-jecting himself to a guide. Only a fool would ask, “Couldn’the climb that mountain by himself?” A sensible man seesthat he cannot climb the mountain by himself and will needa guide to achieve it. Since he wants to climb it at any costs,he shows character by accepting a guide.

For the liberal mentality, such submission is a humilia-tion; but for the Christian it is quite the contrary. Heaccepts direction and guidance because he wants to reach agoal. Therefore, he uses all necessary means to reach thatgoal. While it may seem to be an apparent limitation in hisaction, it is actually something much higher: a true controlof the will. Such an attitude enables us to see what a guidereally is in these conditions.

This happens, for example, with a ship captain who hasfull jurisdiction over the ship. Imagine someone saying,“Are you going to travel to Europe by ship? Do you acceptthe jurisdiction of a captain of your own free will? Don’tyou see that by doing this you show a lack of character andstrength? Be independent here on shore, proclaiming yourindependence to the oceans and winds. Don’t subject your-self to the captain of the ship.”

Only a fool would do this. A wise man could laughand say, “No, sir! I want to go to Europe. I know that I canonly go by ship, which needs a captain. Therefore, longlive the captain! By obeying him I have much morestrength of will than you. You are weak, an imbecile, and


full of complexes. You proclaim your independence to thebeach. No one will listen to you, except the beach becauseit has no choice.”

Aseity and Obedience

The same position applies when utilising the means toattain Heaven. Aseity leads us to certain legitimate and judi-cious submissions, such as the relationship between certainsouls. We will refer to this metaphorically as the relation-ship between a planet and its satellite.

The idea of this relationship cannot be limited to anoutdated vision, prevalent in a certain milieu, that limits theidea of one’s superior to a member of the clergy who,through sermons or spiritual counsel, guides the faithful—and all whom are on an equal footing.

There is an easy way to correct this view. On the onehand, the above is partly true, but, on the other, it is alsotrue that the members of the faithful can guide and helpeach other, under the doctrinal and official direction of theclergy, to attain Heaven. God gave certain souls the missionof elevating and guiding other souls. It is not an official orjuridical mission, but nevertheless it is a very real one thatplays an immense role in the lives of souls. This missiondevelops through a “planet-satellite” relationship.

This “planet-satellite” mission leads in turn to a verita-ble interplay of submissions, because the “satellite” soulunderstands he can only fulfil his mission by being submis-sive to the influence, advice, and authority of the “planet”.


“Jesus is found in theTemple” (1663),

Philippe de Champaigne,Angers Museum, France

In this way, he walks on the right path. For the “satellite”,true aseity is practised when he accepts the authority orinfluence of the “planet”, just as in the case of the ship cap-tain. To cross that ocean he must enter the right ship andaccept the right captain. If he refuses, he plays the role ofthe fool screaming without purpose on the beach.

Thus, the interplay between “planets and satellites” fitswith the idea of aseity. He who knows how to obey those heshould obey has true aseity. Obedience is a true manifesta-tion of legitimate aseity.

Obedience, Grace, and Free Will

No one can force a man to do something good whenhe does not want to do so. As for forcing someone to doevil, this could be discussed. For example, among certaingangs there are those who are enslaved and are unable tobreak this relationship. However, it is very different whendealing with good behaviour.

The Church teaches that without the help of grace noone can stably practice the Ten Commandments. This is thepoint of reference from which we must always consideranything relating to the religious crisis, spiritual life, or anyother similar issue.

Imagine the most fascinating Man in history: Our LordJesus Christ in His Humanity. He was history’s wisest,most intelligent, most perfect, most elevated, most pleasant,most gentle, and most attractive man—as well as the mostterrible in His wrath. Imagine Him using His infinite per-


sonal superiority to influence overwhelmingly the least ofmen for a period of five years.

Imagine that the two of them were the only ones onearth and Our Lord dedicating Himself exclusively to thatman. If Our Lord were to use just His natural superiority,He would not be able to ensure that the man could practiceall the commandments stably. Supernatural action mustcome into play.

No matter how intelligent or how much influence theperson has over the other, as soon as he turns his back theother person could easily fall into sin—even grave sin. Onesin leading to another, after a year it could very well be thatthe person would try to kill Our Lord. He would think: “Iam going to kill that brute. I am fed up with him! Why? Idon’t know, but I am fed up with him!” This could happenbecause no one can be forced to be good.

Thus within the “planet-satellite” relationship, theplanet can only lead a satellite if the satellite wants to be led.The success of the “planet-satellite” relationship is neverdue to intimidation or personal qualities. A “planet” thatthinks he can lead a “satellite” through his great talents hasnot understood the ABC’s of how talent or the strength ofpersonality works. No intimidation in the world can makea man practice virtue. A defect never leads to virtue; onlyvirtue leads to virtue.

Therefore, a “satellite” that practices virtue because ofthe “planet” is really doing so of his own free will. He usesthe planet to help him do what he already has in mind. Hewillingly obeys because he knows the other person will lead


him where he wants to go. Seen in this light, to followanother person is legitimate, good, and upright. It is the wayit should be.

Think of a blind man who asks a boy to lead him tochurch. The blind man obeys the boy because he wants togo to Church and knows the boy will lead him there. Theblind man is in charge, not the boy. The boy is only aninstrument of the blind man’s act of will to go where hewants. The blind man affirms his sovereignty, not his weak-ness.

Someone could object: “When an individual recog-nizes the need for a superior, he affirms his own weakness.”This is true. However, this weakness is not a weakness, butrather part of the order God placed in the universe. Every-one should be guided by a superior. It is not a weakness, buta limitation. It proves the individual is not God. It is anunderstandable act of humility.

He who obeys practices aseity because he obeys thesuperior he has chosen and allows himself to be led becausehe so wills it. The proof of this is how much effort onemust make to allow oneself to be led. It is a sacrifice, andultimately a person will only be led if he wills it.

In sum, the “planet-satellite” relationship works differ-ently in virtue and in vice. Perfect aseity is found in thisrelationship because perfect independence and perfect hier-archy coexist together. Finally, the fullness of aseity is basedon the acceptance by the “satellite” of the legitimate “plan-et” and legitimate authority so that it may attain its owngoal.


Slavery: Public Opinion, Authority, and Aseity

With the “planet-satellite” relationship, a person prac-tices virtue in a habitual state of independence that does notclash with obedience. He is independent from the attrac-tion souls feel to accept and conform to the prevailing opin-ion. He is not one who lets himself be intimidated, mis-treated, and dragged along. Whoever does not practice thislegitimate obedience to his aseity becomes a slave of publicopinion. Once seduced by the siren song of the masses, heis obliterated and dissolved in their collective spirit. Heloses his principles, convictions, independence, and dignity.He is controlled by the masses.

Aseity and the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ

A truly horrific example of how the masses controlpeople can be found during the Passion of Our Lord JesusChrist. Our Lord is the perfect model of virtue. He showedthis through preaching and performing miracles. The mass-es who saw and acclaimed Him as king changed on a whim.Many of them acclaimed Him king just to follow themajority, and without any personal conviction. Later theydid the same thing when they shouted against Him, clam-ouring for His death and even insisting upon freeingBarrabas.

Why? They shamefully succumbed to the dominantopinion. This leads to all types of aberrations. It makes theperson follow the flow of public opinion, wherever it goes.



Veronica is a verybeautiful example ofaseity! She was allalone when she

comforted Our Lord.

“St. Veronica” (1485) H

ans Mem

ling (Private Collection)

He does not have the courage and aseity to stop and reason,“I don’t understand why Our Lord is mistreated. He does-n’t deserve it, so I shall protest against it.”

A curious example of a middle ground between aseityand non-aseity is Nicodemus. He used to speak to OurLord at night. On one hand, he had an independent opin-ion. On the other, however, his political interests and aprobable lack of independence from the masses made himonly speak with Christ at night.

Veronica is a very beautiful example of aseity! She wasall alone when she comforted Our Lord while He was per-secuted and abandoned by everyone. Mary, His mother, isthe perfect natural example of aseity. She practiced aseity toa degree that transcends all comparison. She was not con-cerned about others’ opinions, but stayed, along with theholy women, with Our Lord until the end. She is in a classall to herself.

The apostles are examples of lack of aseity. Saint Peter,for example, was intimidated by a maidservant who laughedat him. The apostles fled, not just because they feared death,but because they lacked aseity: everyone thinking one wayand finding it hard to affirm the opposite.

In respect to this, the greatest drama of history, many ofthe worst ignominies were committed because of this lackof courage to resist one’s misplaced instinct of sociabilityand to go against the prevailing winds. It is impressive to seehow low people can fall when they lack aseity. The fact thatvery few people had the courage to contradict the opinionof the masses is clearly illustrated in the Gospel.


In the opposite sense, it is most beautiful to see howaseity grew strong after the descent of the Holy Ghost uponthe apostles. Increasingly, people who speak out and goagainst the tide start to appear. This is to have true aseity.

The founders of the Christian nations and institutions,as well as those who fought against widespread heresies anderror, were all champions of aseity. Those who work for theRevolution are slaves of the kind of delight of being, think-ing, and feeling like everyone else. Here we have exposed anerve, a delicate problem of soul that warrants a very spe-cial, methodical, systematic, and gradual practice of aseity.

A religious once told me how a friar of his communitynoticed that his convent was in decadence. He said heintended to follow along because he could not resist. Thisis a lack of aseity. He would rather be a coward and followthe others. This is a low and vile deed. One feels like tellinghim to follow the right path and saying, “Put your footdown, stand up, be a hero, have personality.”

Laziness, Pride, and Public Opinion

The capital sin of laziness is the cause of every lack ofaseity. It produces a kind of softness by which an individualdoes not want to make the effort to enter into conflict witheveryone else. Much to the contrary, a noble spirit, an indi-vidual with aseity, ascertains the truth and rejects the lies ofthe masses. “I perceive the truth,” he declares, “and I can-not stand your false statements. I will proclaim the truth,whatever the consequences. I will do what must be done. I


stand against everything and everyone, no matter what mayhappen!”

This attitude requires nobility and greatness of soul.The individual must love truth to such a point that toremain silent when it is denied becomes unbearable. If he istoo lazy to fight (not only against others, but especiallyagainst himself), he will be too lazy to define himself as hefaces those things. He will do everything incompletely. Hewill not define himself outwardly or inwardly and will rollinto the abyss of that lack of aseity, subjecting himself to thedominating masses.

Thus is born the spirit of the mass. The capital vice oflaziness (always linked to pride) presides over this spirit.The individual who does not understand that life has nomeaning if he does not serve the cause of the Church, good,and truth searches for the pleasure of life. He is motivatedby pride. He considers life with the following rationale:“Life was granted to me to enjoy and I do not have to be sofaithful to truth or good when they prevent me from enjoy-ing life.” Later, when he must fight, he feels too lazy toengage in it. The result of the combination of pride andlaziness is the moral devastation of our society today.

Relationship of Aseity and Impurity

In the famous and never sufficiently discussed subjectof chastity, a great number of souls practice impuritybecause, as children, they did not have the courage tooppose the dominant opinion and affirm that impurity is


evil. The principle thus dies in their souls and they end upsurrendering themselves to impurity. This is a lack of aseity.If they had had the courage to defend good position, theywould have had the courage to practice virtue.

The great art of revolutionary forces is precisely toexploit the movements of the soul—comprised of passionsand defects—and then gradually to lead the person to perdi-tion. With this method, souls surrender lazily.

The foundation of this method is a lack of aseity. Thesurrender to a collective whole, caused by pride and lazi-ness, leads the followers of Our Lord Jesus Christ to a stateof conformity with a world opposed to what He came toteach. He came to bring the sword and fire, not a falsepeace.

If we want to deepen our counter-revolutionary forma-tion, we should make a special effort to practice our aseity.It is a wholly different aspect of spiritual life to be fostered.It is of the utmost importance, especially for our days inwhich, more than ever before, this tyranny of the masses isoverwhelming.

Men with real opinions will find it hard to persevere,not so much because of persecution, fear, etc., but becauseof the factor of collective pressure which no man will beable to escape; because the great sins, the great errors, thegreat blunders are made when aseity gives in and this col-lective pressure triumphs. Therefore, this is a concept thatmight add something new to the reasons for our spiritualproblems.


The first supportthat personalityreceives from

family life is that ofheredity, and thesecond is tradition.

CHAPTER 5

The Virtue of Aseity and Family Life

Having defined the word aseity and explained its impor-tance, let us now understand what aseity or personality, touse a more common term, receives and how it benefitsfrom family life. In fact, it receives almost everything.

Personality is a profound force within us. Even so, in itsfirst manifestations, it evidently tends to be timid. It is born ina fragile state and finds its natural support in family life.

What are those supports? The first support that per-sonality receives from family life is that of heredity, and thesecond is tradition.

Let us hear what Pope Pius XII has to say about hered-ity in his Allocution to the Patriciate and Roman Nobility on 5thJanuary, 1941:

The nature of this great and mysterious thingthat is heredity—the passing on through a bloodline,perpetuated from generation to generation, of a richensemble of material and spiritual assets, the conti-nuity of a single physical and moral type from fatherto son, the tradition that unites members of onesame family across the centuries—the true nature ofthis heredity can undoubtedly be distorted by mate-rialistic theories. But one can, and must also, consid-er this reality enormously important in the fullnessof its human and supernatural truth.

One certainly cannot deny the existence of amaterial substratum in the transmission of hereditarycharacteristics; to be surprised at this one would haveto forget the intimate union of our soul with our body,and in what great measure our most spiritual activitiesare themselves dependent upon our physical tempera-ment. For this reason Christian morality never forgetsto remind parents of the great responsibilities restingon their shoulders in this regard.

Passing from biological heredity to the role of tradition,Pius XII continues:

Yet of greater import still is spiritual heredity,which is transmitted not so much through thesemysterious bonds of material generation as by thepermanent action of that privileged environmentthat is the family, with the slow and profound for-mation of souls in the atmosphere of a hearth rich inhigh intellectual, moral, and especially Christian tra-ditions, with the mutual influence of those dwellingunder one same roof, an influence whose beneficialeffects endure well beyond the years of childhoodand youth, all the way to the end of a long life, inthose elect souls who are able to meld within them-selves the treasures of a precious heredity with theaddition of their own merits and experiences.

Such is the most prized patrimony of all, which,illuminated by a solid faith and enlivened by a strongand loyal practice of Christian life in all its demands,will raise, refine, and enrich the souls of your chil-dren.6


THE VIRTUE OF ASEITY AND FAMILY LIFE 65

Here you have a definition of what a home is. There is areciprocal action between heredity and tradition. Thus, a fam-ily constitutes its own small internal world because it has adefined heredity that is derived from biological factors actingover psychological ones, these being formed by the faith andcultural values. A person born into this world feels himselfmarvellously placed because it is derived from a commonfoundation existing among the members of the family. It cor-responds precisely to the most profound level of each one’spersonality. It stimulates each one to be what he is. It favoursthe uninhibited blossoming of the characteristics of the fami-ly, and because of this, stimulates the blossoming of the indi-vidual characteristics linked to the family.

In short, the family, strength-ened by heredity, naturally cre-ates an environment of under-

standing, homogeneity, andspontaneity that helpsthe individual toblossom and devel-op.

There is alsotradition. Each fam-ily transmits its wayof being to the nextgeneration, and inthe act of trans-mission thereis an increase

“Christmas Morning” (1844),Ferdinand G. Waldmuller.Belvedere Museum, Vienna


in the strength of the personality. In this way, tradition rein-forces biological heredity. There is a symbiosis between tra-dition and heredity that produces the ambience in whichthe family provides for the complete blossoming of theindividual.

Let us imagine the case of a family, not a small nuclearfamily, but a numerous family with many children alongwith a large extended family, all of whom frequent thehouse. This ensemble constitutes an environment withconcentric circles. The first circle, let us say, is a child’shome, entirely like him. The second circle is those homesthat are a bit removed from his where there will be somesimilarities and some dissimilarities. Then we have a thirdcircle: the outside world, the place where all similarities anddissimilarities meet casually and haphazardly.

If he feels supported, he can expand himself through-out these three circles. When he enters the outside world,he has all his relatives backing him up and who publiclythink like he does, who feel like he do, and who imposethemselves just like he does. He can face popularity orunpopularity because he has something to support him. Inother words, he can expand his aseity or personality.

How different is the case of a nuclear family! It has fewpeople, so there is not much variety. Since the home is dull,the person flees to the outside world, or he even brings theoutside world into the home by putting televisions in severalrooms giving the sensation that he is in the outside world.

As a result, when the person enters that third circle whichis the outside world, he feels isolated. The child arrives at


school isolated. Young boys or girls start out their social lifeisolated. They will have very little support, if any at all, butwill certainly feel external stimuli or pressure of the fashionsand the ways of being that are imposed by the media. If theyresist, they will be persecuted, ridiculed, and ostracised. Whatis the result? They suffer insecurity, vacillation, doubt, isola-tion, and then capitulation. After enduring something like thisfor, let us say, ten years, if a person does not have a strong per-sonality, he will succumb to the outside pressure, and hisunique personality will be destroyed.

However, family life, when coupled with heredity andtradition, can have an effect on public opinion. Public opin-ion will no longer just be the fruit of the newspaper, radio,or television. The mass media will continue to have itsinfluence, but the dominating influence will be familyopinion, which is what matters most to an individual, as thisis the ambience that surrounds him.

Public opinion will then function within the context offamily opinions. The unifying element of public opinionwill no longer be the omnipotent media acting upon themicroscopic individual, but rather the omnipotent mediaacting through the filter of the extended family that notonly includes relatives and immediate family, but also fam-ilies of families.

Thus, a bi-directional flow is established. On the onehand, public opinion is shaped by the mass media. On theother hand, since the radio, television, and the press need tobe popular, these also suffer the influence of the opinions offamilies so they can maintain their prestige.


We can now understand how public opinion the worldover—so changeable, unstable, fallible, precarious, andcapricious—can become stable, structured, normal, andhealthy, and, as such, can largely protect itself from the massmedia with its demagogic solicitations that are frequentlytyrannical.

This is the idea of public opinion seen from a very dif-ferent perspective.


Families in the pastfounded dynastiesof jewellers,

artisans, professors,magistrates, artists,intellectuals, etcthat lasted forgenerations andeven centuries.

“Fam

ily Workshop”, J.B. Reiter (Private Collection)

CHAPTER 6

The Family Is the Soul of BothSociety and the State

Just as the family produces a profound interrelation-ship among souls that gives it a magnificent organicity, italso tends to overflow its own boundaries and project itsinfluence onto several fields of human activity.

What fields of activity are these? It is normal for rela-tives to have affinities and, therefore, to have similar pro-fessions. This being the case, it is also normal for them tohave mutual business deals. It is also normal that the fami-ly, in many cases, together become a unit of economic pro-duction within one or during several epochs.

As Frantz Funck-Brentano develops very well in hisbook The Old Regime in France, families in the past foundeddynasties that lasted for generations and even centuries. Donot think I am talking about dynasties of kings, nobles, andministers. I speak of dynasties of jewellers, artisans, profes-sors, magistrates, artists, intellectuals, etc. These dynastieswere a powerful aid in the development of European lifebefore the French Revolution, and continued after theFrench Revolution in several areas. This family-oriented

social fabric was a result of the personality of the family.Funck-Brentano cites a very illustrative case of Maître

Pinon, a woodcutter who lived during the reign of KingLouis XIV of France (“Maître” was the title given to theelected head of an extended family community before theFrench Revolution).

The Pinon family had been woodcutters since the timeof Charlemagne and they could prove it. So, when MaîtrePinon had reached an advanced age, let us say 80 years oldas I cannot remember the exact age, the king of France,through a special envoy, sent him some silver buckles,insignias, and a multi-coloured sash to be used on days ofceremony of the guild to which he belonged. The king alsosent him an offer of the title of baron, as such a long andcontinuous fidelity to a trade had inspired the Sun King toelevate this man to the nobility.

Maître Pinon gave this most interesting response: “TellHis Majesty that I thank him from the bottom of my heart,but I prefer to be the first woodcutter of France than to bethe last of its barons.”

* * *

Similar family lineages also exit in Britain today. Onesuch example is in Wiltshire, where a Maurice has been thelocal general practitioner since 1792, when Dr. ThelwallMaurice first set up practice in the market town of Marl-borough. Succeeding generations of Maurices had cared forgenerations of the same families ever since—until the cur-rent Maurice, that is. Although recently qualified as a hos-


THE FAMILY IS THE SOUL OF BOTH SOCIETY AND THE STATE 73

pital doctor, he will not follow his father into the familypractice. After 217 years, this will bring to an end Britain’slongest serving dynasty of GPs.

At the Town Level

Let us now go up one level to see how towns wereformed. These towns very frequently would be expressed asgroups of families linked to other groups of families thatconstituted a small town of families of families.

One could object: “Here you go again talking aboutsmall towns. Can nothing be done with large towns andcities?”

My answer is that I am middle-aged, but still knew thedays when São Paulo was a big city and not the Babel it istoday. The city was divided into spontaneous neighbour-hoods that were organically structured. I consider this mod-ern-day division of rich and poor neighbourhoods anti-nat-ural. Everyone lived together fraternally.

For example, in my neighbourhood the upper class,middle class, and lower class had houses side by side. Itformed a small town within the city. Great or small, allhelped one another from family to family. There was suchintimacy that one could as if say that the neighbourhoodwas a big family. It was a big family in a city that wasalready big.

It was very interesting to note how the force of attractionof the neighbourhood was so great that when people wouldgo to the city centre, it was like a small expedition. Stores from

the city centre would even offer to send samples of cloth,shoes, etc., to be shown at people’s homes so that they wouldnot have to be torn from their neighbourhood.

* * *

In Britain, “Often several families of Anglo-Saxons,related to each other or under the leadership of an adven-turous chieftain, seem to have migrated to England and set-tled down in a village which they built for their clan or fam-ily. This explains how a great number of villages in Englandreceived their names.

“For instance, there are innumerable place-nameswhich end with the syllable “-ham” which meant “home”.The suffix “-ing” meant “descendants from or dependantson” a certain man. Thus Birmingham is derived from the“home of Beorma’s people” so that this city of over onemillion people began as a small village built by Beorma’sfamily or some dependants who regarded him as theirchieftain.” 7

Similarly in France, “The city of Paris was built up bythe juxtaposition of a certain number of fortified residences,each one of which was the seat of a lord, and the latterissued from the family through the intermediary of themesnie” 8

At the Regional Level

Going up another level, this family life that formedcities also formed regions. There are many places where


this pyramid structure of families formed a region domi-nated by the influence of a certain family. A famous Frenchsociologist, when asked what he thought a region was,responded, “The only possible definition of a region is azone dominated by the influence of a great family.” Today aregion is a train line or a bus route. In those days, a regionwas the cohesive strength of a great family.

At the State Level

If a family can dominate a region, a town, and a profes-sion, then no matter what the form of government may be,it will be influenced by families. This influence comes frombelow and moves upwards, penetrating in thousands ofways the organism of the State.

Having penetrated the organism of the State andinstilling it with its vitality, it actually inspires the State. Thefamily is vital force guiding the State. It is a vital force ofconvictions that limits the action of the State. Those direct-ing the State are also part of families. They are part of thisbubbling life, and they know they cannot change the direc-tion of the State, because they are rooted in a society that isnot a society of mere individuals—it is not a doxocraticsociety—but is a society with a defined life and traditionthat function in the same way that the strong undercurrentof a river will certainly influence the course of the ship thatnavigates upon it.

Does the head of State actually set the course of a coun-try? He certainly does, as he holds the reins of power, but


“The Viennese Ball”(1904), Wilhelm Gause.Historischen Museum,

Vienna

he sets the course as does a captain of a ship who is navigat-ing a winding river. He sets the course according to the cur-rents and banks of the river. In this way, a State acquires sta-bility, continuity, and coherence. In this way, the life of thefamily penetrates the State from top to bottom and gives ita solidity that is difficult for us to imagine, consideringtoday’s anti-organic societies.

Of course, I need not say that family life conceived inthis way has its inconveniences. Everything in this life hasits inconveniences. To avoid the family life that I havedescribed because of inconveniences, however, is more orless like a person reasoning as follows: “Many people havedied from cancer of the arm, therefore we should cut offour arms so we do not get cancer.” This is nonsense. Sincewe need to live, we must see how to avoid the inconven-iences.

So what are the inconveniences? The greatest, in myview, comes from the lack of a virtue called Love of God.When this virtue is lacking, aseity, instead of being a gener-ous movement through which a person affirms himself andcommunicates something, rather becomes egotistical andinvasive, as the person affirms himself in order to keepeverything for himself.

I expand my personality at the expense of another whomust be like me. If he is different, then I will smash him,because I want him only to be like me and to serve myinterests. I will use my prestige, influence, tradition,dynamism, and especially my money to impose myself.Everyone will have to do what I want because that is what


is best for me. What is best for me is to have as much as Ican with as much power as possible. I want everyone toacknowledge the greatness of my person.

This may be more or less explicit, or to a greater orlesser degree, depending on the case, but gradually an ero-sion of the morals of a person or a family can take place. Inthis event, we will have a family that becomes an oligarchy.An oligarchic family is one that is closed to new values. It isa family that will never consent to another family, a new-comer, ignoring any justly earned merit and personal value,sitting next to it and participating in its influence andpower.

It is a refusal of the idea that an exceptional individual,possibly from a lower class, could rise to the level of anindividual of a higher class. This establishes a regime ofcastes such as in India, for example. It is something that isentirely closed and from which nothing enters or leaves andremains intact for centuries.

A family organisation, as I have described, could be com-pared to the waters of pool that are discreetly renewed so asto avoid stagnation. It is certainly not the revolted torrent ofthe nouveau riche, of the adventurers, or things done off thecuff. Nor am I speaking of a stagnation that refuses all newvalues. I am speaking of the family which, with all naturalityand unabashedness, accepts new values without any fearbecause it is convinced that one of its greatest strengths is thestrength of agglutination. That which does not have thestrength of agglutination does not live.

Furthermore, this organisation of the family thus con-



A young man from a poor family triumphantlyshows his diploma to his patroness.

F. Georg Waldmüller (1861). Belvedere Art Collections, Vienna, Austria

ceived evidently avoids certain types of families becominglike prisons to its members by not admitting exceptions.Any family that is a living organism easily deals with excep-tions. It does not fear exceptions. If someone wants to fol-low another profession, if someone wants to emigrate fromthe family circle to another locality, he is free to do so and itis granted with goodwill. It will, however, be considered asomewhat rare exception, or even somewhat frequent,depending on those unforeseeable events that are part ofeverything that lives.

Such a family organisation, of course, fits with anyform of government: monarchic, aristocratic, democratic,or even a mixture in varying degrees of these three forms ofgovernment. Reason tells us that the family is not incom-patible with a form of government. Historical experienceshows us, just to cite the Middle Ages as an example, howthere were strong family-based cities living side by side thatwere democratic, aristocratic, and others yet with monar-chic tendencies. Of course, there were the great monarchiesbased on the family. Therefore, this has nothing to do withforms of government.

In sum, we have seen what is a society with true life;what is a society based on families; what is this force flow-ing from the depths of the individual up through the highechelons of the State and even reaching the broad horizonsof Public Opinion itself and that mould a type of societythat we today find it difficult to imagine.

However, if we have a society without aseity or per-sonality, without a warm and bubbling family life, we have,



in fact, a society directed from without. In other words, wehave a mass. Because the raw material of this society that isthe family has been weakened, it will necessarily have toallow itself to be directed and have ever increasing recourseto the State, for only the State will have the strength andmeans to impose, direct, and guide.

What is the result? The State will become increasinglyintrusive into private life as well as increasingly overbearing.The end of the process is totalitarianism.

“The Holy Family”.Discalced Carmelite Monastery,

Madrid, Spain

CONCLUSION

We have just seen how the word “family” is not anempty word. It is the leaven of life, it is a condition for exis-tence, an essential element for progress. Supported by thevalues of tradition, it is the very breath of life of everythingsociety affirms, develops, and tends towards for the future.The family resists and defies death, ultimately bringingabout those historical eras that only societies imbued withthese principles can achieve.

Only what is natural can live; only what is natural canprogress. We have the astounding example of Europe. Aftera few centuries, it became the continent that achieved themost brilliant cultural and technical advances humanity hasknown. This was only possible because its organisation wasprofoundly based on families.

Thus, traditional family life, when imbued with stead-fast religious principles and supported by heredity and tra-dition, forms an individual with a strong and lively person-ality able to confront and triumph over a decadent and sec-ularised world.

Here we fully realise the brilliance, the value of theinstitution of the family. We should then fight for its sur-


vival. We should then fight for the survival of Christiancivilisation with all the strength of our souls.

However, we must not forget—no matter how vital aprinciple for society the family may be—that any good inhuman society can only reach its plenitude, can only besaved from the most dangerous agents of deterioration, byplacing all our faith, all our hope, and all our love in Hewho is the Way, the Truth, and the Life: Our Lord JesusChrist.

PART II

PART II

The De-Christianisation,Urbanisation, and

Industrialisation of the Family

The hard reality is that the institution of the familyis undergoing a process of disintegration that has

only accelerated over the last decades.

INTRODUCTION

Much has been said of the relationship problemsbetween parents and children. “Crisis of Adolescence”,“The Generation Gap” and other expressions indicate thatthis relationship and the conditions of life within the fami-ly are not going through a period of great harmony andunderstanding.

The hard reality is that the institution of the family isundergoing a process of disintegration that has only accel-erated over the last decades. The evident signs are every-where. One only need consider the diminishing numbersof traditional marriages and the increasing acceptance ofso-called “gay marriages”. At the same time, we see anincrease in the divorce rate, more single-parent families,more unmarried couples, more children born out of wed-lock, anti-conception practices as the norm, and abortionscommonplace.

The discord between husband and wife and betweenparents and children is also part of this crisis. This has beenmade significantly worse by the social transformations thathave taken place over the last 200 years, which brought

about the urbanised and industrialised society we havetoday.

Here we will try to demonstrate, with the help of a fewexperts, how the shift from an agrarian and rural society—where the family was organised according the patriarchalmodel—to today’s industrial and urban society—where thefamily has been pulverised and reduced to a small nucle-us—has visibly harmed the harmonic development of thechild within the home itself, as well as the mutual under-standing between the parents.

Harry Elmer Barnes, a promi-nent American historian in the 20thCentury, says in his book Society inTransition:

The relative decline in theimportance of rural life and theurbanization of that whichlingers on certainly constitutesone of the major turning pointsin the cultural and institutionalhistory of mankind. The reduc-tion of rural life and institutions

to a subordinate position in Western civilization hasveritably introduced a new epoch in human history.9

These social transformations profoundly affected tradi-tional institutions. The most important of these, due to itsunique and fundamental position, is the institution of thefamily. The advent of an urban and industrial society creat-ed a new type of family: the nuclear family. Its characteris-


INTRODUCTION 91

tics act powerfully as factors that bring about or aggravatefamily crises and the conflict between generations.

We will now compare the structure and benefits of thetraditional family unit with the structure and harmful con-sequences of the modern day family unit.

The family was numerous,patriarchal, and hierarchical.

It also encompassed collateral branchesand frequently included three generations.

Here the child felt secure.

"Grandfather's birthday", F.G. W

aldm

uller. Historischen Museum, Vienna

CHAPTER 1

The Traditional Family

Let us first look at some of the characteristics of a tra-ditional family unit.

In former times, when a rural tone of life prevailed, manyconditions existed that favoured the harmonic developmentof the child until it reached adulthood. The crisis of adoles-cence was almost non-existent. In those days, society wasguided by stable and coherent principles. The family wasnumerous, patriarchal, and hierarchical. It also encompassedcollateral branches and frequently included three generations.Here the child felt secure. He could resolve any problem aris-ing between him and his parents without necessarily con-fronting them directly, since he had recourse to the interces-sion of many relatives such as older siblings, uncles, aunts,cousins, grandparents, etc. These could act as intermediariesin any conflict. In this way, problems could fade away, rarelyreaching acute emotional stages.

According to Hans Sebald, in his book Adolescence: ASocial Psychological Analysis, in this type of family the childcan also more easily find its role models and companions:

The traditional family was able to provide anumber of adults who could serve as significant

models. This was possible notonly because there were moreindividuals in the family but alsobecause their work performancewas more visible…. In the large,traditional family the child usu-ally grew up with peers whowere of his or her family group.They were playmates withwhom they shared the samesentiments.10

Problems were resolved withinthe family itself amidst an ambience

of comprehension and respect. In his book The Guidance ofthe Adolescent and the Guidance of North American Youth, JoséLlopis says:

When a family is united, understanding, loving,self-sacrificing, sharing, where one’s needs arelooked after, etc., this family has the strength of aninstitution that is welcoming and helpful. There isno need to try to find a solution outside the home.Any conflicts that may arise are discussed within thebosom of the family. Until the adolescent reaches anage when he can intervene in every family matter, hetries to resolve his personal problems himself underthe watchful eye of the father who, from family tra-dition, knows how to prohibit what is not conven-ient.… The influence of a family thus constitutedhas a great strength and creates an ambience ofrespect that, as a moderator, avoids many pitfalls.11


Hans Sebald

Institutional Seriousness of Marriage

One of the most powerful factors that gave solidity andstability to the traditional family was its public and institu-tional character. Mariano Yela states in his Prologue to JoséGonzalez’s book Family Guidance and Therapy:

It used to be that, at least inthe West and from Roman times,the family was above all an institu-tion. It was constituted publiclyand formally upon marriage. Thiswas regulated by religious, ethical,legal and widespread customarynorms that transcended … the cri-teria, sentiments, preferences andprivate decisions of the betrothed,although it did not necessarilyexclude them. The institutional

character afforded a great solidity and stability to thefamily. Divorce was, by and large, legally unviable ordifficult and almost always the object of social dis-approval. The members of a broken-up family usedto consider this a failure, a stigma and a tragedy.12

The idea that marriage should not be left only to thesentimental and affective whims of the betrothed prevaileduntil the end of the 18th century. This concept is foreign tous today. However, this contributed powerfully to the sta-bility of families and to the common social good.

In an article of his entitled “Safeguard of Childhood”,which was published in The Family of Today, the Family of

THE TRADITIONAL FAMILY 95

Mariano Yela

Tomorrow, Louis Roussel, scientific advisor to the NationalInstitute of Demographic Studies in France, states:

The future spouses were not asked their opin-ion. Marriage was something too important for that.It was an essential strategy for the survival of thefamily. The decision that Joan would not marryHarry was not taken out of cruelty. Whether theyloved one another or not was unimportant in rela-tion to the primary aspect which was the continuityof the family.13

Frank Musgrove, professor of History at ManchesterUniversity, in his book The Family, Education and Society, adds:

Our modern-day system in the West of a romantic mar-riage is a recent curious anomaly. It is an eccentric prerequisiteof the so-called advanced societies. In the past … marriage wasa first class ingredient for social cohesion and for uniting theinterests of conflicting social groups.… Generally speaking,when looking at marriage over a period of time, we observethat it is typically and normally a diplomatic agreement. And itis always, in a certain sense, a “marriage of state”. Its essentialpurpose is to establish an alliance between different socialgroups that are frequently opposed to one another.”14

Normal Development of the Childwithout the Phenomenon of “Adolescence”The phenomenon “adolescence”, with its crises and

problems, is typical of modern society and practically did notexist before. Paul Landis, in his book Adolescence and Youth: The


Process of Maturing, says that in a tradi-tional system:

The child grows up in the tra-dition of the family, taking over thefamily occupation, maintainingthroughout his lifetime the familyoccupational status. A youth knowswhat he is born to and makes theadjustment more or less naturallyand unconsciously. But in our kindof society no youth knows what heis born to.15

Philippe Aries, an important 20th century Frenchmedievalist and historian of the fami-ly and childhood, further elucidatesthis matter in Social History of the Childand of the Family:

This phenomenon was bornof Wagnerian Germany and laterspread to France around the 1900s.The young people, then adoles-cents, were to become a topic forthe literature of the day and a con-cern to moralists and politicians.…

From then on, adolescence would expand by push-ing childhood backwards and maturity forwards.…In this way we passed from an epoch without ado-lescence to one where adolescence is the favouredperiod. One desires to attain that age quickly and toremain there a long time.16


Paul Landis

Philippe Aries

Thus, the appearance of the “adolescence” phenome-non coincided with the emergence of romanticism and allof the distorted realities and myths that it created. The pre-romantic, pre-industrialised societies were not acquaintedwith these myths and distortions regarding the normaldevelopment of the child within the family. Philippe Ariescontinues:

In the Middle Ages and at the beginning of theModern Era and even later, the working class chil-dren mixed with adults as soon as they were consid-ered able to dispense with their mother’s or nanny’shelp.… From that moment they took part in thegreat community of people.… Our world isobsessed by the physical, moral and sexual problemsof childhood. This concern was unknown tomedieval civilisation because they did not have theseproblems. As soon as the child was able, he wouldbecome the natural companion of the adult.17

The Opinion of the Catholic Church

The old and rural society, withits patriarchal families, merited thefollowing words from Pope Pius XIIin his speech to the Men of ItalianCatholic Action:

Especially in some regions amagnificent example is given bythose families, rightly called


patriarchal, in whichthe spirit of thedeceased grandfatherstill survives. It is aspirit that communi-cates and transmitsitself from generationto generation as thebest and most sacredpa t r imony—evenbetter safeguardedthan gold or silver. Itis upon such patriarchs and families that societyplaces its hopes and realities. These homes, blessedand fruitful through religion, are those that give civilsociety and the nation its most serene physiognomy,its firmest cohesion, its strongest vigour. In thesehomes, paternal authority is respected and strongbecause it is venerated with a religious spirit. Inthem the child sees the father as a reflection of thepaternity of God because faith in Christ is foremostin reverence, union, submission and concord.18


Pope Pius XII

Children and parents can no longer count onintermediaries to ease their reciprocal difficulties, andtelevision strongly contributes to accentuate this lack of

communication and comprehension.

CHAPTER 2

The Urbanised Nuclear Family:A New Mentalityand Behaviour

Urban and industrial society, in turn, is not guided bycoherent and stable principles. Everything is unstable, con-flicting, competitive, and aggressive. There is no place forthe traditional family.

This brought the advent of the nuclear family made upof parents and one or two children where affectionateunderstanding and mutual communication between gener-ations is increasingly difficult. Children and parents can nolonger count on intermediaries to ease their reciprocal dif-ficulties, and television strongly contributes to accentuatethis lack of communication and comprehension. Childrenno longer have a precise idea of why they were born and donot guide their professional and social lives according totheir parents. They rather look outside the family walls totheir companions hoping that there they may find the free-dom and understanding they do not find within the family.

Furthermore, being confined to small homes accentu-ates the awkward situations and misunderstandings of the

modern nuclear family within itself. It also constitutes afurther psychological tension for children and adolescentswho, in spite of the difficulties they feel in relation to theirparents, still wish to see the home as a place of refugeagainst the aggressions of modern life.

The nuclear family is essentially a product of urbanisa-tion that not only transforms the material conditions of life,but people’s mentality and behaviour as well.

Once again, Paul Landis, in his book Adolescence andYouth: The Process of Maturing, points out:

Urbanization is significant not only because itincreases the density of population but because itchanges the entire tone of the social aggregate. Peo-ple behave quite differently when thrown togetherin large aggregates with little geographical spacebetween them and when isolated in families or insmall neighborhood groups. The problem of childrearing, of economic adjustment, of morals, reli-gion, marriage, and family,… become new with thismajor modification in the life pattern of a people.19

When people live in rural areas in traditional families,they tend to adopt stricter and more conservative moral rulesof behaviour. Moving to an urban area and living within anuclear family leads them to acquire customs that are muchmore liberal or even completely licentious. Antonio Cándido,a Brazilian university professor and writer explains:

Urbanisation is a decisive factor in the evolu-tion of the family. This became more noticeableduring the 19th century when the rural elite started


to move to the cities,…as a resultof the increasing success of indus-trialisation.… There was a definitetendency that favoured the rapidtransformation of what remainedof patriarchal society. Consequent-ly, the following characteristicsappeared: equality of statusbetween man and woman; increas-ing participation of women in theworkforce; increase in birth con-trol; increase in the number of divorces and pro-longed separations; lessening of paternal authorityresulting in a levelling within the family itself;weakening of family links resulting in a change fromthe extended family to a conjugal group.20

Loss of Purpose with the Nuclear Family

This egalitarian and liberal transformation of the fami-ly deprived it of one of its more characteristic purposes:education. The so-called generation gap contributed great-ly to this. This was not only caused by the frequent absenceof the parents from the home, but also by the tense atmos-phere created by the limited space. To this was added theinterference of external factors such as the school, the State,and television.

Let us see what Anne-Marie Rocheblave-Spenle,author of the book The Adolescent and His World, has to sayabout this:

THE URBANISED NUCLEAR FAMILY 103

Antonio Cándido

The State increasingly takes over the functions ofthe family: teaching, education, pleasure. Societyincreasingly encroaches upon the family, especiallyeducation, by means of newspapers, magazines, televi-sion, books,… and certain organisations.… Thus onehas the impression that the family is losing its rights.

T. Parsons considers today’s nuclear family as oneof the main causes of the child’s and adolescent’saggressiveness. In the traditional family, the child sawthe father as a masculine and professional role-model.As he matured he would adjust himself to that model.In our society today, on the contrary, the father is rarelyat home and frequently his professional activities seemdistant and obscure to the child.… When society wasstable, when things changed little, the role of the par-ents was not a problem. It was transmitted from gen-eration to generation without argument.… Today, bythe very nature of the rapid changes in society,… par-ents feel vulnerable and helpless.21

Marie-Françoise Côte-Jallade adds:

The family no longer exercises its traditionalfunctions.… Plopped in front of the television, theparents no longer speak of their activities or of theirwork. The family is now too frequently a place ofsilence.… Rarely does a son learn a trade or profes-sion from his father.… The family also in great partlost its function of transmitting moral values.22

One also cannot minimise the impact on the children’seducation in cases where the mother must work in order tomake ends meet.


Urbanisation Favours Juvenile Delinquency

One of the most striking aspects of the accelerated anddisordered urbanisation is the formation of sprawling hous-ing estates where nuclear families are confined to small flatswhere they have no desire to spend their leisure hours. As aresult, most of their time is spent on the street.

This happens with both the parents and the children. Ithinders the educational function of the family and favoursjuvenile delinquency. This fact is corroborated by themajority of specialists such as Robert Laplane, Geraud Las-fargues, and Denise Laplane in their book Puberty:

If family ties loosen, others are formed thateven surprise the adults themselves. The youngform groups, gangs … whose formation is favouredby the artificial creation of housing estates and dor-mitory towns that are left during working hours tothe unsupervised young.23

C. I. Sandstrom, in his book The Psychology of Childhoodand Adolescence, adds:

Formerly members of a community weremoved by strong family ties as well as a uniformbehaviour that left little or no room for anti-socialactivities. Social development led to bigger cities andto the breaking of family ties. Work is generally out-side the family circle and the old values were dis-solved without creating new ones. For the individualthis means an increasing social vacuum disconnectedfrom any place, tradition or work group. The mem-


bers of the community became more isolated andanonymous. As a result the social checks and balanceswere weakened. According to Durkheim, this type ofsociety creates and encourages criminality.24

Incapacity to Provide for Its Own Members

The family was not only affected in its moral, psycho-logical, and social aspects by urbanisation and industrialisa-tion. Its economic activities were also changed. No longercapable of providing services and exercising functions asbefore, the family stopped being a production unit. In hisessay “Sociological Study of the Spanish Family”, JoséManuel Rodriguez Delgado explains:

The enormous growth of cities, mechanisation,massification and the means of communication cre-ated environments that are profoundly transformingthe old family structure. Men no longer work athome but in offices and factories. Salaries are nolonger given in kind but in paper money. The fami-ly unit is no longer one that produces but ratherconsumes.… Husband and wife are no longer ableto take care of their elderly, of their sick and of theirchildren. It is now society that provides care homes,hospitals and day-care centres. Socialisation of chil-dren (that is the progressive and adequate integra-tion of the individual into society without the fami-ly) is done less in the home and more in the nurs-eries, primary schools and the street. Entertainment


is less personal and is increasingly centred on televi-sion or outside the home at amusement parks orpublic events.25

At this point, let us summarise some of the main ben-efits of the traditional family model as well as some of theharmful effects of the nuclear family model, the result oftwo centuries of urbanisation and industrialisation:

The Traditional FamilyVis-à-Vis the Nuclear Family

� In the Traditional Family, there are usually manychildren.

� In the Nuclear Family, there are few children.* * *

� The Traditional Family is normally made up of threegenerations interrelating amongst each other.

� In the Nuclear Family, there is normally no interre-lationship between three generations.

* * *

� In the Traditional Family, there are many extendedfamily relatives.

�The Nuclear Family has few extended family relatives.* * *

� In the Traditional Family, the ambience diminishestensions.

� In the Nuclear Family, the ambience aggravates ten-sions.


� In the Traditional Family, the child passes from infan-cy to maturity with fewer crises.

� In the Nuclear Family, the child confronts the crisisof adolescence head-on.

* * *

� In the Traditional Family, parents are identifiable psy-chological and professional models for their children.

In the Nuclear Family, parents frequently are not rolemodels for their children, who then look outside the fami-ly to find them.

* * *

� In the Traditional Family, the mother stays at homeand the children are under her watchful eye.

� In the Nuclear Family, the mother frequently has ajob and does not take care of the children personally.

* * *

� The Traditional Family resolves its own problemswithout having recourse to outsiders.

� The Nuclear Family frequently does not resolve itsown problems, but seeks outside help.

* * *

� The Traditional Family is harmoniously integrated insociety as a whole.

� The Nuclear Family lives oppressed, in conflict andcrisis with the social structures.

* * *

� The Traditional Family’s stability is derived fromfaith and the observance of religious and moral principles.


� The Nuclear Family’s instability comes from thelack of faith and the lack of observance of religious andmoral principles.


CONCLUSION

We have seen some aspects of the bad influence that thesocial transformations of the last two centuries, charac-terised especially by industrialisation and urbanisation, havehad over the internal structure of the family. This shakingof the traditional institution of the family had, and contin-ues to have, profound repercussions in the social order.

Before concluding, we would like to note that neitherindustrialisation nor urbanisation could provoke, of them-selves, such a profound dismantling of the family. For thepast six hundred years, Western Christian civilisation hasbeen undermined deliberately. It is a process so profound,vast, and prolonged that it encompasses every domain ofhuman activity, such as culture, art, laws, customs, andinstitutions.

The late Professor Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, in hismasterly work Revolution and Counter Revolution, gives thisterrible enemy a name: the Revolution.

Its profound cause is an explosion of pride andsensuality. Pride leads to hatred of all superiority and,thus, to the affirmation that inequality is an evil initself at all levels, principally at the metaphysical and

religious ones. This is the egalitarian aspect of theRevolution.

Sensuality, per se, tends to sweep aside all barri-ers. It does not accept restraints and leads to revoltagainst all authority and law, divine or human, eccle-siastical or civil. This is the liberal aspect of the Rev-olution.26

This Revolution is what moves the psychological andsociological factors to transform customs and institutions.Without its influence, industrialisation and urbanisationwould not have taken place in an unbalanced, anarchic, andintemperate manner. The family that was traditional, patri-archal, extended, protective, educating, formative for bothsocial and professional life, without psychological prob-lems, without the generation gap, and without the crisis ofadolescence, could have continued to exist and to give thetone to a wholesome society.

Let us then reject this new form of the family, whichhas proven to be so harmful, and return to the traditionalfamily with all of its proven benefits. The process will behard and slow, but indispensable.


1) Fustel de Coulanges, The Ancient City, translated from the French by Willard Small; Leeand Shepard publishers, 1874, Book 2, pp. 149–153.

2) Henri Delassus, The Spirit of the Family in the Home, Society and the State, Companhia Edi-tora do Minho, S.A., Barcelos, p. 15. [translator’s note: further investigation seems toindicate that Mgr Delassus is in fact using Aristotle’s Politics as his source for this text].

3) Wilfred J. Moore, Britain in the Middle Ages, G. Bell and Sons, Ltd., London, 1954, p. 78.

4) Régine Pernoud, The Glory of the Medieval World, translated by Joyce Emerson, DennisDobson, Ltd., 1950, p.28.

5) Leo XIII, encyclical Immortale Dei, 1 November, 1885, Bonne Press, Paris, vol. 2, p. 39.

6) Pius XII, Discorsi e Radiomessaggi di Sua Santita Pio XII, Tipografia Pliglotta Vaticana, 5 Jan-uary, 1941, pp. 363-366.

7) Wilfred J. Moore, Britain in the Middle Ages, G. Bell and Sons, Ltd, London, 1954, p. 23.

8) Frantz Funck-Brentano, The Old Regime in France, translated by Herbert Wilson, EdwardArnold & Co., London, 1929, pp. 291-292.

9) Harry Elmer Barnes, Society in Transition, pp. 559-560, Prentice-Hall Inc. New York, 1939in Adolescence and Youth: The Process of Maturing by Paul H. Landis, McGraw-Hill, NewYork, 1945, p. 72.

10) Hans Sebald, Adolescence: A Social Psychological Analysis, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs,NJ, 1992, pp. 159-160.

11) José Llopis, The guidance of the adolescent and the Guidance of North American Youth, EditoraHerder, Barcelona, 1965, p. 34.

12) Mariano Yela, Prologue to José Gonzalez’s book Family Guidance and Therapy, EditoraInstituto de Ciencias del Hombre, Madrid, 1984, p.10.

13) Louis Roussel “Safeguard of Childhood” published in The Family of Today, the Family ofTomorrow No. 1-2, 1985, Paris, p. 118.

14) Frank Musgrove, The Family, Education and Society, Editora Verbo Divino, Estella (Navar-ra), 1975, p. 92

15) Paul H. Landis, Adolescence and Youth: The Process of Maturing, McGraw-Hill. New York.1945. p. 70

16) Philippe Aries, História Social da Criança e da Família, Zahar Eds., Rio de Janeiro, 1978, pp.46-47

Notes


17) Ibid., pp. 275-276.

18) Pius XII, Allocution to the men of Italian Catholic Action on 20 September 1942, “Colecciónde Enciclicas y Documentos Pontificios”, Publicaciones de la Junta Tecnica Nacional,Madrid, 1955, p. 1177.

19) Paul H. Landis, op. cit., p. 72

20) Antonio Cándido, A estrutura da escola, “Educação e Ciências Sociais”, 1956, 1, no. 2, pp. 139-172, in Samuel Pfromm Neto, Psicologia da Adolescência, Livraria Pioneira Ed., 7ª. Ed., SãoPaulo, 1979, pp. 226-227.

21) Anne-Marie Rocheblave-Spenlé, El adolescente y su mundo, Ed. Herder, Barcelona, 1972,pp. 137-140.

22) Marie-Françoise Côte-Jallade, “De 14 a 19 anos – La adolescencia o la dificuldad de ser”,Colección “Asi se hace el Hombre”, no. 8 , Ed. Sal Terrae, Santander, 1984, pp. 53-54.

23) Robert Laplane, Geraud Lasfargues and Denise Laplane, La Pubertad, Oikos-tau Ed. SA,Barcelona, p. 129.

24) C. I. Sandstrom, Psicologia del nino y del adolescente, Ed. Morata SA, Madrid, 1968, p. 265.

25) José Manuel Rodriguez Delgado, Fundamentos biológicos de la família, “Estudio Sociologicode la Familia Espanola”, Instituto de Sociologia Aplicada de Madrid, ConfederaciónEspanola de Cajas de Ahorros, Madrid, 1976, p. 471.

26) Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira, Revolution and Counter-Revolution, The American Society for theDefense of Tradition, Family, and Property, Spring Grove, Pa., 3rd printing (2003), p.3.

TRADITION, FAMILY AND PROPERTY 117

Tradition,Family andProperty

Association(TFP)

A SCHOOL OF THOUGHT. As a civic association ofCatholics, TFP bases itself on the teachings of the tradition-al magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. We see thecrisis of contemporary society as having its roots in the mostprofound problems of the soul of present-day man, whenceit spread to his whole personality and to all his activities. Weunderstand this crisis to include:

1. A loss of Faith and a rejection of the principles of thenatural order established by God.

2. The continuous opposition of the disorderly passionsof the soul, particularly pride and sensuality, to the mandatesof Natural and Moral Law, leading to absolute equality andlicentiousness.

3. The existence of a process, through which individu-als—and even whole nations—are gradually attracted eitherto the pole of good and of order, or else to the pole of eviland disorder.


A SCHOOL OF ACTION. To counter the above revo-lutionary process, which led to the present anti-Christianorder of things, we aim to re-establish Christian civilisation.To accomplish this we use every available peaceful and lawfulmeans, such as:

Direct action to inform the public about key ideologicalissues, thereby frequently changing the course of events. Inpublic campaigns that are a hallmark of the TFP, our volun-

teers talk directly topeople on the streetsand hand out leaflets.To date we have dis-tributed approxi-mately 2 millionleaflets in this way.

Informing andeducating throughleaflets, newslettersand books dealing

with a range of topics of interest toCatholics and the general public. TFP'scarefully researched books and positionpapers always receive the highest praisefor their accuracy and in-depth insightsinto issues. TFP Viewpoint, our bi-monthly newsletter, keeps us in touch

with our friends. We also give talks to a widevariety of groups, explaining our work, or dealing with

specific topics.


Why Tradition,Family, Property?

Why is it important to defend tradi-tion, the family and the right to privateproperty? At first sight these values mightseem to be an arbitrary mix. But, in fact,they are three pillars supporting every soundcivilisation, and especially Christian civilisa-tion. Abolish any one of them and the othertwo will wither and die. They are valuesrooted in both Natural Law and DivineRevelation. Today they are under attack asnever before. To restore Christian civili-sation we must foster and defend tradi-tion, the family and the principle of privateproperty.

Tradition is the sum of a people’s accomplishments inthe religious, moral, cultural and material fields. It is a gifthanded down from generation to generation by virtue ofwhich youth moves forward with a surer step, enlightenedand guided by the experience of elders. Tradition is not mere-ly an historic value, nor simply a romantic yearning forbygone days. It is an indispensable factor for contemporarylife. Through tradition societies avoid stagnation, as well aschaos and revolt.

Family is tradition’s most dynamic element. If the fami-ly did not exist, neither would tradition, for families are thebearers of natural and supernatural moral values that arepassed on from one generation to the next. A family mustdevelop this rich patrimony into a school of being, living, pro-gressing and serving one's country and Christendom. Other-wise it risks producing maladjusted individuals who don'tknow who they are and who cannot stably and logically fitinto any social group.

Property is a human right based on the nature of manas a free individual entitled to the fruits of his labour. Pri-vate property is indispensable for the well-being of the fam-ily. In accordance with their God-given instincts, all parentsworthy of the name work, struggle and save to provide asecure future for their children. Thus, families accumulatepatrimonies which are passed on from generation to gener-ation as inheritance. Inheritance is the rendezvous of fami-ly and property. Although even more important than mate-rial possessions are intangible goods like education and cul-tural and moral values. To deny the legitimacy of this is tomake parents strangers to their own children. The seventhand ninth Commandments explicitly state the sacredness ofprivate property.

The destruction of tradition, the family, and privateproperty has been sought by all the totalitarian movements ofthe modern age, especially Socialism, National Socialism(Nazism), Fascism and Communism. These movements arenatural enemies of Christian civilisation.


Who isPlinio Corrêade Oliveira?

PROF. PLINIO CORRÊADE OLIVEIRA was born in1908 in São Paulo, Brazil, acountry having the largestCatholic population in theworld. Both his parents camefrom traditional aristocraticfamilies.

He dedicated his life to promoting the cause of theCatholic Church and Christian civilisation. In 1928 he joinedthe Marian Congregations, then Brazil's largest Catholicmovement, soon rising to national leadership, and distin-guishing himself as an orator, lecturer and man of action. Attwenty-four years of age he was elected to the BrazilianConstitutional Assembly of 1933 as a candidate for theCatholic Electoral League.

In the following years he practiced law, held the chair ofhistory of civilisation at the University of São Paulo LawSchool, and the chair of modern and contemporary history atthe Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo. In 1960 hefounded the Brazilian Society for the Defence of Tradition,



Family and Property, serving as its president until his death in1995.

As a thinker and writer, Professor Corrêa de Oliveiramade a major contribution to modern Catholic thought. An

avowed Thomist, he was the author of 15 books and over2,500 in-depth essays and articles. His works include: In Defenceof Catholic Action, Revolution and Counter-Revolution, The Churchand the Communist State: The Impossible Coexistence, Nobility andAnalogous Traditional Elites in the Allocutions of Pius XII and many

others.

While president of the São PauloArchdiocesan Board of CatholicAction, he directed the weekly

Legionário, making it Latin Ameri-ca’s front-ranking Catholicnewspaper. Later, he was acontributor to the influentialmonthly magazine Catolicis-mo, and a syndicatedcolumnist with Brazil’slargest daily newspaper,the Folha de São Paulo.

Professor Corrêa deOliveira’s life and work wasthe inspiration for otherCatholics around the worldto establish TFPs in theirrespective countries. His legacyis seen today in the thrivingschool of thought he foundedand in his worldwide following ofdisciples. �


OTHER WORKS OFPROF. CORRÊA DE OLIVEIRA

IN ENGLISH:

– Revolution andCounter Revolution

– Egalitarianism:The Metaphysical Value andReligion of our days

– Nobility and Analogous TraditionalElites in the Allocutions of Pius XII

Reflections on the Passionof Our Lord Jesus Christ:– The Agony in the Garden

– Good Friday– Have mercy on me, O God (Psalm 50)

These and other publicationscan be obtained from:

TRADITION, FAMILY, PROPERTY ASSOCIATIONP.O. Box 2713 – Glasgow G62 6YJ

Tel: 0141-956-7391 – Fax: 0141-956-6978email: [email protected]

fatima comentada 2008 - amazon s3 · liberalism and aseityes 46 knowledge of truth, grace, ... more...

Documents